Hi Heather, I agree with that approach. I would actually regard this as a kind specialised archetype, just using template technology.
One of the advantages of moving to ADL1.5/2.0 is that it is is possible to do this kind of profiling as a specialised archetype not just within a template. In fact templates and archetypes are technically identical. You do raise an interesting point about how/if we flag that the parent archetype itself should not normally be used. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: ian at freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Director, openEHR Foundation Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 15 November 2014 05:03, Heather Leslie <heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Bj?rn, Thomas > > > > You could potentially create a template for each archetype with this unit > issue, if you like, and govern it in the Norwegian CKM. That artefact can > then be published as the ?approved? Norwegian version of the international > archetype. > > > > Templates of a single archetype are effectively a profile. We use this in > Ocean?s implementations where we want consistent archetype constraints used > across multiple document templates. > > > > Templates can then be used in other templates and these Norwegian-specific > constraints could be used consistently across templates within a single > clinical system and also across multiple clinical systems. > > > > The only remaining issue would be to indicate that the template is the > preferred modelling artefact ? not sure how we do that other than > notification in CKM. It would not be apparent to modellers deep in the > tools, and predominantly working with archetypes. Not sure how we could do > that? L > > > > Regards > > > > Heater > > > > From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at > lists.openehr.org] > On Behalf Of Thomas Beale > Sent: Friday, 14 November 2014 8:04 PM > To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: Postulate: DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest possible > units > > > > On 14/11/2014 08:42, Bj?rn N?ss wrote: > > I have been thinking about profiling. I am not sure if this fix the problem > regarding complexity. > > This may be an governance thing. If we define a metric and british imperial > profile we may define that in Norway every application MUST use the metric > profile and other countries may select ?british imperial?. This could make > it easier to set up validation on entries. > > > > Is this a usage you were thinking about? > > > > > exactly. It requires defining the profiles in the archetypes as per my last > post. I can see that it could work for units, not sure about other things. > If such profiles were defined, it would then be possible to make a template > tool remove elements you don't want when creating templates. This would be > done by the normal means e.g. > > path/to/imperial/quantity occurrences matches {0} > > but it would be done for you, and noone would have to go looking for them. > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
