That's why I suggested this /items[at0008]/value[1]/value = Jan As David said, /items[at0008][1] and /items[at0008][2] are referencing the same node in ADL (at0008).
In my opinion, if you want to access the leaf node for the value it makes very little sense to try to reference the nearest object with atXXXX. Or in other words, If you need to tell apart two siblings I would put artificial identifiers in the nodes that don't have any. And by the way, if you need to tell apart two sibling nodes because they have different semantics (surname 1 & surname 2) you probably want to put an identifier on those too in the first place. 2013/11/22 Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> > On 11/22/2013 08:00 AM, David Moner wrote: > >> ADL paths are used to reference object nodes within an archetype, not >> instances, and in an archetype every node type is unique. A different >> thing is if you are talking about ODIN/dADL paths. >> > That is the case. The discussion is about how to indicate to which > leafnode in an archetype datavalues belong. > Every leafnode has an unique path towards it. > > In fact, the starting of the discussion was that some > kernel-developers/users use path/value combinations, and not > object-representing notations to handle datavalues in combination with > archetype definitions. > > Bert > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > technical_lists.openehr.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20131122/b9186c7b/attachment.html>
