Re: AW: Unique paths for slots problem if slots are filled with same archetype

[Diego Boscá]

This could work in some cases, but if I recall correctly that name is
language dependent (i.e. Only one of the archetype translations is used) ,
which would make this difficult to implement in archetypes that have
several languages as you wouldn't be able to easily tell what label is
really there

El mar., 23 oct. 2018 15:25, Sam Heard 
escribió:

> Hi Tom
> If we are using the same archetype for the sender info and receiver data
> then I can see only two sensible options from a design perspective:
> 1) There are two slots...named receiver and sender.
> 2) the designer did not know what might be in here so the person filling
> the slot in the template or the data named them differently.
>
> In many situations it will be critical to differentiated sender and
> receiver unambiguously so a cluster could be a sensible solution. Otherwise
> transfering the name of a slot to the name of the archetype in the slot?
>
> Cheers Sam
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Thomas Beale 
> Date: 23/10/18 9:50 pm (GMT+10:00)
> To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
> Subject: Re: AW: Unique paths for slots problem if slots are filled with
> same archetype
>
> 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
> .
>
> - 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
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: AW: Unique paths for slots problem if slots are filled with same archetype

[Thomas Beale]

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 
.


- 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
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: AW: Unique paths for slots problem if slots are filled with same archetype

[Bakke, Silje Ljosland]

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

From: openEHR-technical  On Behalf 
Of Thomas Beale
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 11:21 AM
To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
Subject: Re: AW: Unique paths for slots problem if slots are filled with same 
archetype




On 23/10/2018 10:09, Sebastian Garde wrote:
So that we don’t forget, I have created 
https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-279 for this.
I am not fussed whether it is prepended or appended, I can see tiny advantages 
for both.
The more interesting question to me is whether this is optional and only added 
when really needed or required.
There is this edge case, but I also wonder if a reasonable query on data would 
be to ask for anything inside a specific slot, no matter what it is filled with 
(as e.g. mandated by Template A vs Template B). This does not really seem to be 
(generally) possible - even if there are not two identical archetypes in 
different slots?


that would also require adding the slot node id, but I wonder how useful this 
particular query really could be... we never thought of it in 10 years of using 
AQL AFAIK...

- thomas
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: AW: Unique paths for slots problem if slots are filled with same archetype

[Thomas Beale]

On 23/10/2018 10:09, Sebastian Garde wrote:


So that we don’t forget, I have created 
https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-279 for this.


I am not fussed whether it is prepended or appended, I can see tiny 
advantages for both.


The more interesting question to me is whether this is optional and 
only added when really needed or required.


There is this edge case, but I also wonder if a reasonable query on 
data would be to ask for anything inside a specific slot, no matter 
what it is filled with (as e.g. mandated by Template A vs Template B). 
This does not really seem to be (generally) possible - even if there 
are not two identical archetypes in different slots?




that would also require adding the slot node id, but I wonder how useful 
this particular query really could be... we never thought of it in 10 
years of using AQL AFAIK...


- thomas

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org