By the way, I just found out that archetype_node_id from locatable class from the reference model (common_im document, page 22) is obligatory (!!!).
The meaning of the attribute is as follows: "Design-time archetype id of this node taken from its generating archetype; used to build archetype paths. Always in the form of an ?at? code, e.g. ?at0005?. This value enables a "standardised" name for this node to be generated, by referring to the generating archetype local ontology. At an archetype root point, the value of this attribute is always the stringified form of the archetype_id found in the archetype_details object." If you have to put the atxxxx code and the archetype does not have it, what do you put there? What should expect the systems? There is even an invariant defined as "Archetype_node_id_valid: archetype_node_id /= Void and then not archetype_node_id.is_empty" How does this work in your current implementations when sometimes the atxxxx code is not present? 2013/9/2 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > On 02/09/2013 08:49, David Moner wrote: > > > > > 2013/9/2 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> >> >> >> Well, LinkEHR is a real implementation in use by several organizations, >> and we think these identifiers are needed both technically and >> methodologically, so we will continue our way of doing thing :-) >> >> >> To be clear, I didn't mean modelling tools, I meant production EHR >> systems that use the resulting models. >> > > Of course, me too: > http://www.eurorec.org/news_events/newsArchive.cfm?newsID=239 > > > Yep, I know about that (the more systems the better!). But I would be > interested to know what the clinical models look like - are they posted > anywhere? And what is the clinical modelling process? I would think after a > few years of it, there would be some ideas on which nodes need to be > defined and which don't? I'm just trying to get some evidence here, so we > can better understand the right set of rules to use in the formalism and > its tooling. > > - thomas > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130920/a0a089a9/attachment.html>
