Non existing constraints: closed or open interpretation?

David Moner damoca at gmail.com
Thu Jul 5 02:43:29 EDT 2018


It seems to me that allowing that is an error or needs a clarification in
the AOM/ADL 2 specifications. Archetypes are the place for the structural
and semantic definition of the clinical information models. Templates are
only local configurations of them by a constraining approach. Think about
the implications. If  in a template we can add a complete new structure,
then we will need to also share templates (and not only archetypes) to
reach a complete semantic interoperability. Moreover, that would mean that
there is no real difference between creating specialized archetypes and
creating templates. Thus, why we would need the latter?

El mié., 4 jul. 2018 a las 13:04, Pieter Bos (<pieter.bos at nedap.com>)
escribió:

> 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?
>
> Pieter
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> David Moner Cano
>
> Web: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner
> Twitter: @davidmoner
> Skype: davidmoner
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>


-- 
David Moner Cano

Web: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner
Twitter: @davidmoner
Skype: davidmoner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20180705/c1152733/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list