On 21/06/2012 12:08, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 21/06/2012 11:49, Diego Bosc? wrote: >> Hi Thomas& Ian, >> >> I see what you mean, and I agree that in its current form >> ITEM_STRUCTURE has no sense to be put and not restricted. Maybe there >> are other cases where this is still valid (restrict the ENTRY class in >> its current form I would say that it has no sense either, but maybe >> CARE_ENTRY could be used in the same way). Maybe it is even useful for >> those archetypes which is difficult to tell if they are an Observation >> or an Evaluation :) >> >> * >> * > > that could make sense in the context of a legacy system extract, where > you really don't know what is in there, but nevertheless, you have > algorithms that can make an Observation from some types of data (labs, > vitals etc) and Evaluations / GenericEntries from everything else .... > * > *
although, you can just leave COMPOSITION.content completely unconstrained, then any ENTRY can go there... - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120621/b85a0d36/attachment-0001.html>
