Hi Pieter,
On 01/11/2016 10:22, Pieter Bos wrote:
I fully agree that they should be mandatory. Things like this make writing software based on OpenEHR more complex than it could be. I also never understood that the DV_-types do not have an archetype node id in the reference model.
this is because they don't inherit from LOCATABLE, which is a modelling decision from a long time ago. I'm not aware that it has caused major problems (at least not reported ones) but I can imagine that it might seem better today to make DATA_VALUE inherit from LOCATABLE, or at least to have the archetype_node_id field in it. I'm not that clear on how much it matters in anyone's implementation.
This adds complexity, because the paths in an archetype do not always match the paths in a reference model object. Sometimes you just need paths based on an archetype that need to work in reference model objects. For example when displaying information, rendering forms, evaluating rules or score calculations, or rendering a UI to edit stored reference model objects. Of course, you can write something that converts these paths from the AOM to the RM, but I don’t see why that should be necessary.
well the RM objects, down to the ELEMENT nodes, should have archetype paths that match the archetypes that create them, with the added complexity that real data may contain multiple instances that match a given archetype path, as described here <http://www.openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/docs/architecture_overview/architecture_overview.html#_data_paths_and_uniqueness>.
Can you provide more detail on what 'conversion' you are referring to here? thanks - thomas
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
