ADL/AOM 1.5 - id-codes unification - the final change

Thomas Beale thomas.beale at
Thu Jan 2 05:01:10 EST 2014

Thanks for the input; see the wiki page 
<> for 

On 02/01/2014 09:41, Diego Boscá wrote:
> Made a comment on the wiki page, but I will copy that here too:
> Still thinking about this, but I have a first doubt:
> What is the result of generating the standard equivalent ADL for this 
> ADL code? (from the example)
> ELEMENT[id31] occurrences matches {0..1} matches {
>                                          value matches {
>                                              DV_CODED_TEXT[id5002] matches {
>                                                  defining_code matches {
>                                                      [local::
>                                                      at31,     -- Naked
>                                                      at32,     -- Reduced clothing/bedding
>                                                      at33,     -- Appropriate clothing/bedding
>                                                      at34;     -- Increased clothing/bedding
>                                                      at0033]    -- Assumed
>                                                  }
>                                              }
>                                          }
>                                      }
> Do atxx codes get changed to id codes magically or just new idxx are 
> generated? new idxx codes or id500x ones? new objects added to the 1.5 
> archetype should always have id50xx?
> I'm still wondering if the at000N => idN+1 rule and the id5000 rule 
> are a good idea. I see a lot of potential problems and not much benefits:
> I don't really think that keeping a at->id correspondence is a 
> critical issue: The user defining archetypes shouldn't even be aware 
> of the changes, and if we want reuse current systems, things like AQL 
> paths should still had to be rewritten to deal with the missing atxx 
> codes, so not much benefit of having a rule for direct translation.
> My suggestion is to keep things as simple as possible and just put 
> idxx codes where needed. Maybe it's a good idea to use the at000N => 
> idN+1 rule, but for the missing ones I would just make another pass 
> and put new idxx codes starting from the last idxx code we assigned on 
> the first pass. As the 1.4 to 1.5 process only has to be done once, I 
> think it's better to make two passes to the original archetype and 
> just put new idxx codes from now on.
> I'm not a fan of having different ranges of id with different 
> meanings. With templates being archetypes I won't discard having 
> idxxxx with values dangerously near to 5000...

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

More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list