Good to know. I think the only remaining issue could be the one to confirm if a specialized object should always have at-code.
And regarding use_node, I would also add that you have to be careful not to create an internal reference from a sibling (and if you do then you MUST put an at-code) 2013/8/27 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>: > On 27/08/2013 18:20, Diego Bosc? wrote: > > Thinking a little about node identifiers I have thought some > problematic use cases. > First, this is the current 'rule' in the wiki > (http://www.openehr.org/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=196633) for > when node identifiers are really needed. I copy the relevant part for > ease the discussion: > > > this wiki page is (I hate to say...) out of date - the current rules are: > > > ADL takes a minimalist approach and does not require node identifiers where > sibling object nodes > can be otherwise distinguished. Node identifiers are mandatory in the > following cases: > > for an attribute defined as multiply-valued in the underlying information > model (i.e. a container type such as a List<T>, Set<T> etc), all immediate > child object nodes. This applies even if a particular archetype only > specifies one child object of the attribute; > for single-valued attributes with more than one child, all immediate child > object nodes; > with the exception of use_node constraints where the node identifier can be > inferred from that of the target node. > > I think this probably deals with the cases you point out below. I'll now go > and update that wiki page :( > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
