Originally they were thought as two different artifacts to live in different parts of the system. But as you point this is not the case. That's why in ADL2 both archetypes and templates are describe by the sane artifacts
In case of ADL1.4, templates que usually describe in OPT, which has different expressability El sáb., 12 oct. 2019 17:03, Georg Fette <[email protected]> escribió: > Hello, > In what extends does the specification language for defining archetypes > and the language for defining templates differ ? > Both take existing data models (RM types and archetypes) and constrain > them as needed. > It is often said, that archetypes are used to recombine RM types and > templates are used to recombine archetypes. But the slot mechanism > within the archetype definition does as well allow archetypes > recombination within archetypes. And the constraining that is done > within templates could as well be done using the constraining mechanisms > of archetype design. > Why are two specification languages needed ? And if one has elements > that the other is missing, why can't those elements simply be included > in the other, to reduce the amount of specification languages ? > Greetings > Georg > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dipl.-Inf. Georg Fette Raum: B001 > Universität Würzburg Tel.: +49-(0)931-31-85516 > Am Hubland Fax.: +49-(0)931-31-86732 > 97074 Würzburg mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
