Hi Ian, Yes, it is not many cases where this is really required, but in the Service Request archetype, it is fairly likely to happen and anybody creating a template without your, Diego’s, David’s, Heath’s etc. cutting edge top-level expert knowledge around this will quite likely run into a trap…so, yes, it should be fixed somehow.
The various workarounds (including David’s/Diego’s latest idea) ‘work’ and have slightly different advantages but all dodge the issue (of course). Extra Clusters in the core archetype are clunky but avoid the need for doing anything in the template; Specialising the CLUSTER without changes for a new archetype id is probably more elegant and you can use it with the current published archetype...but on the other hand you need to know this and not forget 😊. Renaming the root node of the slotted root node as you say is somewhat similar, easier, but mono-lingual. Cheers, Sebastian Von: openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> Im Auftrag von Ian McNicoll Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 13:09 An: For openEHR technical discussions <email@example.com> Cc: Sarmad Al-Kufiash <sarmad.alkufi...@oceanhealthsystems.com> Betreff: Re: Unique paths for slots problem if slots are filled with same archetype Hi Sebastian, This is 'known issue' but not one that we had really thought too carefully about. We 'solve' it right now by renaming the slotted in archetype root node at template level but others have already pointed out that this is less than ideal. Adding an intermediate cluster would solve things but feels clunky. I understand Thomas had some ideas about this re ADL2 but I like the ideas from Heath / Diego also. It is probably less of a practical issue than might seem the case as we tend not to have too many situations where the meaning needs to 'inherit' from the Slot name, and where those adjacent slot names differ for identical slot fills but agree it needs fixed. Ian @Diego - thanks for that input Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: i...@freshehr.com<mailto:i...@freshehr.com> twitter: @ianmcnicoll [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjUmNWaFZYZlZ5djg&revid=0BzLo3mNUvbAjRzZKc0JpUXl2SkRtMDJ0bkdUcUQxM2dqSVdrPQ] Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org<mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 10:44, Diego Boscá <yamp...@gmail.com<mailto:yamp...@gmail.com>> wrote: While I believe we have reproduced this behavior in the OPT management to be compatible with existing tooling, in our typical slot solving methodology (non-template mode) the original archetype slot node_id ends in the new object node_id. Information about which slot was solved in this node ended in a new attribute in the term definitions (we called that attribute 'DCM', but you get the idea). We modified the AOM model to have references to both current archetype and solved archetype in order to avoid node_id collisions in archetype definition time. I think we have talked before about the need of splitting the archetype_node_id attribute into node_id / archetype_id, which I think would solve these problems. Another solution would be to include always the node id in the node id, even if you are using it to store the archetype_id, so paths would look like [openEHR-EHR-INSTRUCTION.service_request.v1::at0000]/protocol[at0008]/items[openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.service_request_information.v1::at0141] Regards El vie., 19 oct. 2018 a las 10:57, Sebastian Garde (<sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com<mailto:sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com>>) escribió: Hi all, We have encountered an interesting issue with how to construct unique paths for slots when there is more than one slot on the same level, and both slots are filled with the same archetype. In this case, the resulting paths for both seem to be the same in OPT and thus in the data. (The at/id code of the slot are not part of the path for a filled slot.) Likewise, you cannot apply an annotation to only one of them, because they share the same path. This seems to be a general problem, but let me explain it in more detail using a concrete example: The problem manifests itself for example when you start using the Service Request Archetype in CKM (https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.614). In the archetype’s protocol (see screenshot below), there are various slots, most importantly let’s look at the Requester and the Receiver Slot. In a template (see 2nd screenshot), both slots can be filled with the same archetype, technically, and it also seems reasonable from a content point of view to use the same archetype for both slots. The problem is that this means that the paths are no longer unique – there is no way to differentiate between the Requester and Receiver information anymore as far as we can see in the OPT, and consequently in the data. Also, if annotations are used on a path like this, these annotations would automatically be applied to both Requester and Receiver. For example, the path for BOTH the Requester and Receiver, once filled with a service_request_information CLUSTER archetype is: [openEHR-EHR-INSTRUCTION.service_request.v1]/protocol[at0008]/items[openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.service_request_information.v1] Is anybody already using this archetype (or a similar one) in their systems and is encountering this issue? Is anybody using workarounds for this? One way this issue could be avoided/dodged is if the archetype wraps these slots in additional clusters, so that the resulting path is unique even if the same archetype is used inside slots on the same level. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to construct archetypes the way this one has been constructed, but I am not sure if the implications are clear. Is this something the SEC needs to have a look at if this is something that needs to be addressed somehow…or are we simply missing something? Maybe at0141 for Requester / at0142 for Receiver need to be included in the path somehow (even if it is ugly)… Regards, Sebastian _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHRfirstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:openEHRemail@example.com> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- [VeraTech for Health SL]<https://htmlsig.com/t/000001C268PZ> [Twitter] <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001C47QQH> [LinkedIn] <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001C4DPJG> [Maps] <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001BZTWS7> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/htmlsig-assets/spacer.gif] Diego Boscá Tomás / Senior developer diebo...@veratech.es<mailto:diebo...@veratech.es> yamp...@gmail.com<mailto:yamp...@gmail.com> VeraTech for Health SL +34 654604676<tel:+34%20654604676> www.veratech.es<http://www.veratech.es/> La información contenida en este mensaje y/o archivo(s) adjunto(s), enviada desde VERATECH FOR HEALTH, SL, es confidencial/privilegiada y está destinada a ser leída sólo por la(s) persona(s) a la(s) que va dirigida. Le recordamos que sus datos han sido incorporados en el sistema de tratamiento de VERATECH FOR HEALTH, SL y que siempre y cuando se cumplan los requisitos exigidos por la normativa, usted podrá ejercer sus derechos de acceso, rectificación, limitación de tratamiento, supresión, portabilidad y oposición/revocación, en los términos que establece la normativa vigente en materia de protección de datos, dirigiendo su petición a Avda Puerto 237, 1º, pta 1 - 46011 Valencia o bien a través de correo electrónico d...@veratech.es<mailto:d...@veratech.es> Si usted lee este mensaje y no es el destinatario señalado, el empleado o el agente responsable de entregar el mensaje al destinatario, o ha recibido esta comunicación por error, le informamos que está totalmente prohibida, y puede ser ilegal, cualquier divulgación, distribución o reproducción de esta comunicación, y le rogamos que nos lo notifique inmediatamente y nos devuelva el mensaje original a la dirección arriba mencionada. Gracias _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHRfirstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:openEHRemail@example.com> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHRfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org