yes I will, BTW there is another conversation that is related to this and to improving the specs, the subject is: "ACTIVITY.description vs ACTION.description archetypes"
if anyone can take a look at it, would be helpful. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez http://cabolabs.com Subject: Re: initial states for instructions / when do we need actions? To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org From: thomas.be...@openehr.org Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 08:25:53 +0100 Hi Pablo can you raise a PR for this, with some summary of the changes you think are needed? thanks - thomas On 14/07/2016 05:16, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Heath, thanks for taking the time to answer, this is really useful and I think your comments should be included in the specs as examples of how the instruction/action interaction and the effect of that interaction on the ISM should work. First it makes total sense for me to have INITIAL as the current state when no ACTION was recorded for the INSTRUCTION. And it also makes sense to include a "placeholder" ACTION (might not have much info but the next state) for INSTRUCTIONS that need to be on PLANNED when the INSTRUCTION is created (like the medication case). About 3.1 I was thinking of a case where the event of creating the INSTRUCTION also includes the coordination/scheduling of ACTIONs that will be performed. I think this is just another case of my previous paragraph: we need an ACTION to change the state to SCHEDULED. Thanks a lot! -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez http://cabolabs.com _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
