Non existing constraints: closed or open interpretation?

Stefan Sauermann sauermann at
Thu Jul 5 03:17:41 EDT 2018

This is a VERY GOOD question!
(Please consider that I am completely ignorant of specification details.)
(Coming from the templates of HL7, they are part of the harmonised 
specification, and shared, and essential for enabling interoperability, 
and - most important - enable reuse of existing concepts. Archetypes can 
definitely do all of that as well.)

All the best,

Stefan Sauermann

Program Director
Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master) ->
Medical Engineering & eHealth (Master) in September 2018!

University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien
Hoechstaedtplatz 6, 1200 Vienna, Austria
P: +43 1 333 40 77 - 988
M: +43 664 6192555
E: stefan.sauermann at

Am 05.07.2018 um 08:43 schrieb David Moner:
> 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 
> <mailto:pieter.bos at>>) 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
>     <mailto:damoca at><mailto:damoca at
>     <mailto:damoca at>>> 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:
>     Twitter: @davidmoner
>     Skype: davidmoner
>     _______________________________________________
>     openEHR-clinical mailing list
>     openEHR-clinical at
>     <mailto:openEHR-clinical at><mailto:openEHR-clinical at
>     <mailto:openEHR-clinical at>>
>     _______________________________________________
>     openEHR-clinical mailing list
>     openEHR-clinical at
>     <mailto:openEHR-clinical at>
> -- 
> David Moner Cano
> Web:
> Twitter: @davidmoner
> Skype: davidmoner
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list