On 30/09/2014 22:33, Ian McNicoll wrote: > Hi Diego, > > I understand your point but I am not sure that slot naming is really > working out as any of us envisaged. In the vast majority of cases > where we specify an archetype pattern in the slot description we also > leave the constraint open-ended because experience has shown us that > too tightly coupling the parent and child leads to over-complication > of dependencies and insufficient flexibility to cope with new use > cases. In this respect the slot filling constraint acts as useful > 'design guidance' i.e this is the sort of archetype we expect to be > slotted in here but others (including V2 versions are allowed).
it might be worth noting that slots and external references (i.e. direct references to archetypes, without the slot) have identifiers, like all nodes, in ADL/AOM 1.5, and also that external references are used ubiquitously in CIMI, which are all named (if you mean that they have 'meanings', i.e. id-code references). We also have to remember that 13606 and other archetype formalism users might have quite different styles of use, as CIMI does. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141001/9122c4fa/attachment.html>
