Hi all!

The issue (and some possible solutions/workarounds) is now described at 

Feel free to add information, comments etc there.

//Erik Sundvall

3 nov. 2018 kl. 15:12 skrev GF <gf...@luna.nl<mailto:gf...@luna.nl>>:

Either it is solve using standardised basic Archetypes or via the RM.
The RM route is the preferred one.

When thinking about it, then…
Data in any Patient Record is either:
- de novo data stored at a session
- re-used pre-existing data (Reported data, used data in processes, etc.) This 
data is pre-existing data that is re-used. When querying for a concept it must 
be possible to restrict it to new data and/or re-used data.
Again this can be solved via standardised basic Archetypes or the RM.
The RM is the best option.

Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

On 3 Nov 2018, at 12:23, Thomas Beale 
<thomas.be...@openehr.org<mailto:thomas.be...@openehr.org>> wrote:

I've just been thinking more about this problem. I agree we need to fix it, and 
it seems fairly likely adjusted rules for forming paths and storing archetype 
markers in data will be needed.

But... the archetype structure mentioned is a hack for getting around the lack 
of order-tracking attributes in the RM. We've had a look at this before (e.g. 
 but I would suggest we need to think soon about additions to the ENTRY class 
or package to properly model requester and receiver meta-data.

- thomas

openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical mailing list

Reply via email to