How does this 'unknown' value relate to the discussions we already had regarding the need of having all atxxxx codes present in the ontology?
2013/9/23 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > On 20/09/2013 20:40, Bert Verhees wrote: > >> Op 20-9-2013 17:01, Thomas Beale schreef: >> >>> it's simpler than you think - we made that property mandatory so that >>> programmers would never get a null exception. >>> >> Must have been along time ago, nowerdays, programmers have no problem >> handling a null property. >> > > actually, that's not quite true. It's probably the primary reason for > exceptions in object-oriented software - method call on a void object. But > I get what you are saying, and for this String field, being null would not > pose a great problem. So we could change the spec to do that. > > > >> I wonder what the idea behind stuffing the archetype_id in the >> archetype_node_id property is? >> Here you make it harder for programmers because the archetype_id has >> another syntax in archetype-paths then the archetype_node_id has, and >> anyway, lots of other functions, and a programmer has to check the >> string-layout to find out if it is an archetype_id or an archetype_node_id. >> It also blocks the possibility to store the "at"-code for the root, and >> check the ontology for its contents. >> > > the idea is that there is only one field to look at to find archetype > identifying information in data. It is either an archetype_id (string form) > or an at-code, or (for systems that support it) it's empty / 'unknown' > (which could be replaced by null/void). With the archetype id, you can > always look up the archetype and find out the root code (at0000, or a > matching pattern like at0000.1 or at0000.1.1). But if you can't look up the > archetype, you are lost, and that's what the archetype_id is for. > > - thomas > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.**openehr.org<openEHR-technical at > lists.openehr.org> > http://lists.openehr.org/**mailman/listinfo/openehr-** > technical_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/20130923/0b0a0a68/attachment.html>
