Thanks, Thomas, for your confirmation, I was thinking this, but now I am sure.
The question about Locatable was just to give an extreme example. regards Bert On 03-05-12 11:24, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 03/05/2012 10:19, Bert Verhees wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please allow me a short question. >> >> Is it allowed to define abstract types in archetypes, I once saw an >> archetype which held an EVENT as attribute, so the constructor of the >> rm-object which had to be validated against the archetype, could at >> runtime decide if he wanted to use a POINT_EVENT or INTERVAL_EVENT. >> Is this allowed? > > the runtime has to decide (if not already decided by the archetypes or > templates) - there is no choice! > >> >> Same can occur with data_structures and data_values. >> >> Suppose (theoretically) an archetype which has LOCATABLE as >> definition-class. >> It allows virtually everything as valid rm-object. > > it would but you can't state any interesting constraints with just > LOCATABLE, so it is more likely to be something like EVENT. > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > >
