Non existing constraints: closed or open interpretation?
pieter.bos at nedap.com
Wed Jul 4 07:03:24 EDT 2018
Adding a new observation to the content attribute of an existing composition Archetype is certainly possible in ADL2 templates...
Any idea on why people that did this would want this?
Op 4 jul. 2018 om 08:33 heeft David Moner <damoca at gmail.com<mailto:damoca at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
Templates further constrain archetypes, that constrain the reference model. In both cases, if the ANY constraint is used, that means that anything defined in the underlying archetype (or in the underlying reference model) is acceptable. Thus, you have to do an open interpretation.
On a normal case where the full OPT is defined, from COMPOSITION to ELEMENT.value, how that OPT is interpreted? open or closed? Are extra ENTRIES and other nodes allowed even no definition for them is on the OPT? (open interpretation), or only OPT defined nodes are allowed? (closed interpretation).
If you mean the case when we already have an structure defined in the template (or in the archetype), then the interpretation is closed. If you already constrained an OBSERVATION inside a COMPOSITION, you removed the ANY constraint, and thus the OBSERVATION is your only option. This is not completely true in specialized archetypes, where you can expand the definition and create new constraints, but that is a special case that is not possible (as far as I know) at the template level.
David Moner Cano
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
More information about the openEHR-clinical