David, this document <http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/am/knowledge_id_system.pdf>talks more about this topic. In my view the data should record both the template id, and the template at-code, i.e. at0001.1 or whatever. Note that querying will normally be driven off archetypes, so in reality what is like to happen is that the data will carry a code like at0001.3.2 from some template, whose parent is an archetype having at0001.3 as the code on the same node; the AQL query would be constructed using the at0001.3, and will pick up any at0001.3.2, at0001.3.3, at0001.3.0.1 etc from any number of conforming templates - exactly the intended effect of the query.
- thomas On 19/11/2010 12:07, David Moner wrote: > Dear all, > > I have a doubt about templates defined as an archetype specialization. > The updated specs say that templates are just a further specialized > archetype. So, any change made at that level (remove or define > mandatory nodes, slot filling, etc.) also means a new level at the > node identifier. For example, if I have a node with "at0001" and I > constraint something of it at the template level, we should generate a > new "at0001.1" for that node. > > The question is, data instances that will be generated should use the > clinical archetype node id (at0001) or the template node id (at0001.1) > as archetype identifier? Or phrased differently, for the second case, > if I communicate the instance, should I also share the template > definition to better describe it or would be enough by sharing only > the clinical archetype? > > David * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101119/2fe751f0/attachment.html>
