On 27/08/2013 21:27, Diego Bosc? wrote: > I don't think archetype ontology would be more complicated at all. > There are currently archetypes with different set of properties in > each at code and tools can handle it well (if I remember correctly, > NEHTA archetypes have extra properties). I'm pretty sure tools are > currently robust enough to deal with missing at codes at the ontology. > It's even very easy to check if an at-code is on the ontology (if I > recall correctly from java implementation...) >
well I think Nehta archetypes may have some hacks - they wouldn't conform to ADL 1.5 and I am not even sure if their internal archetypes conform to ADL 1.4. IN any case, the things they want (annotations mainly) are done differently in ADL 1.5. It's certainly easy to check for codes that are not in the ontology - and current the tools all do check, and generate lots of errors: VONSD, VATDF1, VATDF2, VATCD, VETDF, WETDF, VATCD, VACDF1, VACDF2; see meanings here <https://github.com/openEHR/adl-tools/blob/master/apps/resources/messages/source/adl_validity_errors.txt>. I'm not saying it's not an idea worth thinking about, but the current specifications and tools all work on the opposite premise. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130827/cf4326ee/attachment.html>
