2014-10-31 9:02 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>:
> On 31/10/2014 07:39, David Moner wrote: > > I will explain it in another way. > > acNNNN codes are used as "placeholder constraints", i.e. a kind of link > to a query or subset in a terminological systems that defines the possible > instance values of a coded attribute. > > My question was: Is it needed to be always a link to a subset? Cannot we > use acNNNN to define bindings to specific terminological codes explicitly > enumerated, without the need of defining a subset in the terminological > system in advance? > > > I think this is a different Q from before! > Maybe I overcomplicated my first mail :-) > But this is what ADL 2 does. All subsets in an archetype have an ac-code, > and you can either/both define the subset locally. > I know, that's why I asked if it is feasible to incorporate this or at least something similar in the transitional 1.4+ since it seems a very important characteristic. -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia - 46022 (Espa?a) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141031/dcf02119/attachment.html>
