Andrew Patterson wrote:
This is not sensible to have in an archetype - otherwise it would not be
there! It is a requirement for templates in use.
I don't understand why it is not sensible to have in an archetype?
Couldn't it be useful to say that for this particular observation
we want
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20061026/0d2fdd39/attachment.html
-- next part --
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20061025/e09599a4/attachment.html
-- next part --
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
This is not sensible to have in an archetype - otherwise it would not be
there! It is a requirement for templates in use.
I don't understand why it is not sensible to have in an archetype?
Couldn't it be useful to say that for this particular observation
we want to explicitly disallow the
How about specialised archetypes? Wouldn't there be occasions when a
parent archetype has some attribute, which a child (specialisation) of
that archetype don't want to deal with?
Mattias
2006/10/25, Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.biz:
This is not sensible to have in an archetype -
-technical-bounces at openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of
Andrew Patterson
Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2006 4:24 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: a zero existence constraint
This is not sensible to have in an archetype - otherwise
I think that the right place to say for this usage of this archetype I want
to explicitly exclude something is in the template. The archetype should
be a representation of a concept that can be used for all conceivable
requirements of that concept and then constrained in the template.
I
an opportunity to specify an existence
constraint
which might be narrower than that in the information model.
So my interpretation would be that the correct syntax
for a zero existence constraint would be therefore
attribute existence matches {0} matches {*}
Hi Andrew
It's valid only
Andrew Patterson wrote:
For the case where an attribute is constrained to '0'
existence i.e.
state existence matches {0} .
what should follow as the rest of the attribute
constraint? Technically, the rest of the definition
is superfluous as we have already stated that the
attribute
For the case where an attribute is constrained to '0'
existence i.e.
state existence matches {0} .
what should follow as the rest of the attribute
constraint? Technically, the rest of the definition
is superfluous as we have already stated that the
attribute must not exist, but the
'matches'
10 matches
Mail list logo
