Resending, because of problems with the list.
Should C_DOMAIN_TYPE classes be defined based (using) on C_PRIMITIVE?
and more,
are any of the C_PRIMITIVE classes used directly as a constraint to an
archetype element?
these questions refer to the fact that string or integers by themselves
do not
Rodrigo Filgueira wrote:
Resending, because of problems with the list.
Should C_DOMAIN_TYPE classes be defined based (using) on C_PRIMITIVE?
I believe a common interface (C_DATA_TYPE) should be extract from these
two classes as I pointed in my previous post.
Rong
and more,
are any of the
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060815/1f2648e2/attachment.html
validValue().
Pablo Pazos
NIB
- Original Message -
From: Rodrigo Filgueira
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: C_PRIMITIVE and C_DOMAIN_TYPE
Should C_DOMAIN_TYPE classes be defined based (using) on C_PRIMITIVE?
and more
Should C_DOMAIN_TYPE classes be defined based (using) on C_PRIMITIVE?
and more,
are any of the C_PRIMITIVE classes used directly as a constraint to an
archetype element?
these questions refer to the fact that string or integers by themselves
do not have any semantic meaning, they acquire
5 matches
Mail list logo