Mandatory elements in archetypes, and user interfaces

GF gfrer at luna.nl
Fri Nov 10 09:03:21 EST 2017


Why isn’t it a good idea?

Give an example, svp.

Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088
  gfrer at luna.nl

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

> On 10 Nov 2017, at 14:21, Boštjan Lah <Bostjan.Lah at marand.si> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10 Nov 2017, at 14:19, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at openehr.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/11/2017 10:24, GF wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Even when elements make no sense when both are recorded, even then 1..1 is a problem in Archetypes.
>>> It is up to the implementer to decide to restrict 0..n further in the Template.
>> 
>> you can't restrict from 1..1 => 0..* in a template - it's not allowed in any restriction algebra, of which ADL is an example.
>> 
>> If it is thought that no occurrnces constraint might be needed in any derivative archetype or template, the original parent should have 0..1 or 0..* as appropriate.
> Yes, but I think making all archetypes generic like Gerard suggests is not a good idea.
> 
> Bostjan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20171110/a4d61a61/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list