On 31/10/2014 08:16, David Moner wrote: > > > 2014-10-31 9:02 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale > <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com > <mailto: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. >
yes, undoubtedly. I will start a wiki page to try and tease out changes to reverse engineer from ADL 2 into a new ADL 1.5, 1.6 etc. But I'll rely mostly on input of others on this, so this suggestion needs to go there, and any others you have. I'll do this ASAP. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141031/6843f50f/attachment.html>
