Thanks Tom, The reworded rule is what I was asking for actually: something in the spec that sets the rule for this particular combination of values.
Cheers Seref On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > On 02/08/2011 13:13, Sebastian Garde wrote: > > Hi Seref, > > interesting, I think Thomas changed this rule for ADL 1.5 to: > ??? VACMC - cardinality/occurrences validity: where occurrences and > cardinality are stated, the interval represented by: (sum of all occurrences > minimum values) .. (sum of all occurrences maximum values) must intersect > with the interval stated by the cardinality. > > Thomas and I had a discussion about some edge cases here a while ago, where > you could make this rule a little more strict potentially, but in any case > it seems to be a necessary condition for a correct archetype. > > My take is that VCOC prevents functionality that is needed and is simply too > strict and was therefore modified to VACMC in ADL1.5 - Thomas? > > Sebastian > > Yes. We should allow the two 0..x constraints. The cardinality constraint > says you must have at least 1 thing in the list, and the two other > constraints each say - separately - that the EVENT and INTERVAL_EVENT > matching objects can single have 0 instances. Taken together, it is all > compatible. The reworded rule above, quoted by Sebastian, says that it has > to be at least possible to meet the constraints. > > - t > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >
