Diego,
You are right that it's not easy to do with regex lexical referencing.
That's why there is a proposal to use semantic referencing
<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/ADL/Semantic+slot+proposal>, which
would define slot fillers of an archetype in the following way:
<< openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1
which would mean 'any child of openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1,
or any minor version of openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1, or
openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1 itself'. So then it doesn't
matter what versions the child archetypes are - if they refer to
openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1 or any variant minor version as
their specialisation parent, they are included.
In this approach, the string 'openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1' is
understood as a 'reference' not an 'identifier', where a reference may
evaluate to more than one target. So if you write:
<< openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1.4.0
then it would mean: just children of v1.4.0, and not children whose
parent could be a different minor version.
We would also have operators:
= openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1
meaning: just the archetypes that openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1
refers to, and
< openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1
meaning only the children, but not the direct referents of
'openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.respiration.v1'.
I thought we would convert to this system some years ago, but people
seem to be happy with the current system for now. It won't work forever
though....
- thomas
On 25/09/2014 13:45, Diego Bosc? wrote:
> I can agree you with the 'absolute' references, but I still think that
> slots to specialized archetypes are not well defined as they are
> currently defined:
> If you want to say that all children from a .v3 archetype are allowed
> you cannot say openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION\.respiration(-[a-zA-Z0-9_]+)*\.v3
> because specialized archetypes start with v1 even if the father was a
> v3 or v20.
> and if you say openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION\.respiration(-[a-zA-Z0-9_]+)*\.v1
> to somehow be correct with all the specialized children then you can't
> assure who is the parent archetype.
>
> I think in this case the version shouldn't be fixed as you are no
> longer pointing to a single archetype ('absolute' reference) but to a
> set of archetypes (that can be potentially infinite).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140925/28223773/attachment.html>
