openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-11-12 Thread Heath Frankel
Hi Erik, I am still catching up from some time-off, interesting discussion seem to happen while I am away... I will start with my comments at the start and likely to respond to later responses. Heath Some of the interesting bits I've picked up so far from discussions: - Maybe it would be a

openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-11-12 Thread Heath Frankel
Hi Erik 1. Will the XML schema get updated to make sure patient data instances carry along the archetype/template inheritance in a good way? [HKF: ] I have spoken with Tom on this topic considerable, we are looking at extending the ARCHETYPED class to support a list of archetype_ids (similar to

openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-10-28 Thread Erik Sundvall
Hi! A question regarding naming/identifiers. According to http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/am/archetype_semantics.pdf parts of the grammar for identifiers is... archetype_id: qualified_rm_entity ?.? domain_concept ?.? version_id qualified_rm_entity: rm_originator ?-? rm_name

openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-10-28 Thread Peter Gummer
Erik Sundvall wrote: openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.adls openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis_sweden.v1.adls openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls Should not the identifiers instead be: openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls

openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-10-28 Thread Diego Boscá
Shouldn't archetype identifiers and file names be separated? 2010/10/28 Peter Gummer peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com: Erik Sundvall wrote: openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls ? openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.adls ? ? ?openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis_sweden.v1.adls

openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-10-28 Thread Ian McNicoll
The draft spec for 1.5 knowledge identifiers can be accessed via http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Development+and+Governance+of+Knowledge+Artefacts The '-' based specialisation syntax is proposed to be dropped, as it became very unweildy once you srart to consider how to handle

openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-10-28 Thread Thomas Beale
In ADL 1.5 they are - you can name the archetype files however you like, and put them where you like. - thomas On 28/10/2010 09:46, Diego Bosc? wrote: Shouldn't archetype identifiers and file names be separated? 2010/10/28 Peter Gummerpeter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com: Erik Sundvall

openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-10-28 Thread Thomas Beale
As Peter said, ADL 1.5 changes this. The hyphen is not nedeed (but it is accepted to allow backward compatibility). See http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/am/knowledge_id_system.pdf and also

openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-10-27 Thread Thomas Beale
The culprit is lack of time... as usual So far I have created a simple test LINK archetype, showing how a jurisdiction, in this case Sweden, might use it. To see it, follow these steps: 1. if you don't have it, download the ADL workbench

openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)

2010-10-27 Thread Thomas Beale
On 27/10/2010 13:28, Erik Sundvall wrote: Wow Tom! That was a fast, nice and somewhat unexpected answer, now we're just awaiting the caption text to explain the image :-) You at least got me poking around for the archetypes, finding