On 02/04/2014 15:13, Gerard Freriks wrote:
> imo
>
> 1- Slots need to 'point at' archetypes by Name of the Archetype and 
> NOT the file name. Plus something else ...

Gerard,

this has always been the case. I hope no-one is implementing anything to 
do with filenames!

> 2- All Nodes in any archetype never derive any meaning from the text 
> of the label attached the Node and thereby can be language 
> independent. Archetypes written in different languages can be used at 
> will. This is possible only when ...

well that's sort of true, in the sense that the computing layer (tools, 
EHRs etc) rely on the codes, not the words. But where humans work with 
the models, or enter data into screens generated in their natural 
language from a template, then the 'meaning' is to do with the 
linguistic definitions, since it's how humans know what data to enter in 
to what field.

> 3- Node names derive their identity (meaning) from a code from a 
> predefined code set.

that's an ideal - the practical reality is a long way off. So a better 
statement is: node names can be associated with terms from predefined 
code sets at any time, including a long time after the archetype was 
originally created.

> 4- In addition we must be able to 'point at' other archetypes using 
> unique identifiers, or a construct using generated Hash-codes for each 
> unique archetype.
>

In ADL 1.5, there is a 'direct reference' aka 'external reference' which 
does this - unlike a slot, there are no regex patterns, just a full 
archetype id. The idea of using hash codes in slots (e.g. MD5s) has been 
mentioned in the past, but I don't think it's likely to be maintainable.

In any case, the proposed referencing rules are described here 
<https://github.com/openEHR/specifications/blob/master/publishing/architecture/am/knowledge_id_system.pdf?raw=true>
 
if anyone wants to comment on or improve them.

- thomas


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140402/e035e4d8/attachment.html>

Reply via email to