I'm becoming convinced that we need to make a technical change to allow
the slot id be stored in the data, as suggested on the discussion thread
already.
So my suggestion for modellers is: assume it will get solved, and do
your modelling in the natural / preferred way (i.e. don't introduce
hacks like extra CLUSTERs), and we'll work out an ADL-level solution.
It would help if you can add any detailed info to the description of the
PR that Sebastian just created
<https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-279>.
- thomas
On 23/10/2018 11:29, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
Hi all! I hope the SEC will discuss and hopefully solve this issue in
the upcoming meeting in Oslo. This is fairly serious from a modelling
POV, as there are some archetypes that are based on the (in my opinion
fair) assumption that it’s possible to tell two instances of the same
CLUSTER in two parallel SLOTs apart. An example is “Communication
capability” https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.3155.
We’d prefer not having to change the modelling to circumvent the
technical issue, if possible. 😊
Regards,
*Silje*
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
