Well, I would say that "free or coded text" is quite common in healthcare, but even if you argue that this exact example has no real clinical validity in openEHR it is still an issue that could happen in any other standard (I would say that CDA for example with his data types and all his inheritances will suffer this problem for sure)
You can see that in these years even at-code rules have changed quite a bit (just see current wording and compare with previous ones). Specialization is a BIG part of archetypes and the more we use it the more new problems we find. If you want we can wait until archetype systems are in use to detect these kind of issues. Ignoring problems won't make them disappear. As we have discussed before, we want to add the functionality to turn off the node autocompleting. But again having all nodes with at-code is perfectly fine according to the specifications, and given the issues we encounter with specializations I would say that is always be better safe than sorry. 2013/8/27 Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl>: > On 08/27/2013 07:20 PM, Diego Bosc? wrote: >> >> Do we need at-codes when >> we create siblings such as DV_TEXT and DV_CODED_TEXT? > > In which circumstance can a sibling occur of a DataValue? Certainly not in > an ELEMENT. > I either cannot imagine another circumstance. > > So why use a node-value? Write a nodeId if you want, it is not very > interesting. The problem is another. > > It annoys me quite some time, this issue, not if you use a nodeId or not, or > if your archetype-editor does or does not. > > ***I would say, make it optional, configurable**** > > But what is the case? > > The problem is that there are two main archetype editors. > One creates nodeIds in DataValues, and the other does not. > The designers have apparently a different opinion on this. > > Sometimes the editors crash/choke on the ADL construct the other delivers. > And even when they do not choke, when you change one letter in an archetype, > maybe in the ontology.... > What happens? The editor quickly removes/adds the nodeIds on all DataValues. > (one does this, the other does that) > > This makes it impossible to work with them both. Ity makes it hard it > exchange archetypes with other people. > ------------------ > It looks very much alike the Document-format battle we have on this world > for years now, Word vs WordPerfect vs OpenOffice. Even ISO standards did not > solve this. > > Why is that? > What is behind this? > Competition? > ------------------ > Coming back to archetype editors? > Why change other parts of an archetype if someone wants to save a very small > change. > > I really gave up complaining about this, and I often use text-editors for > writing archetypes. At least, they do what I want them to do. > > So hey, we are living in 2013, it should not be that way. > > Please think about the users, the customers, do what they want you to do, > and make it configurable. All problems are solved then. > > Thanks > Bert > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
