Hi Georg,
Yes that is absolutely correct. The archetypes act as a constraint on the
RM so must always be compliant with the RM, and whatever underlying
archetype class is selected. Same applies to templates. Practically
speaking this does still give us a huge amount of flexibility, especially
as we can add cluster archetypes in Slots, which is very useful when trying
to align with legacy system data.
Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
CCIO inidus Ltd. i...@inidus.com
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 08:30, Georg Fette
wrote:
> Hallo,
> I have a question about the degree of freedom in defining archetypes:
> Archetypes are not composed but rather specified by constraining the
> base classes from the reference model. Hence no new/custom field members
> can be definied in the definition of a new archetype but only the field
> members already existing in the base classes have to be used. So there
> will never be a path like
>
> a/myField/myProperty/value
>
> but always just something like
>
> a/data/events/items/value
>
> The same applies for the definition of templates.
> Is this correct ?
> Greetings
> Georg
>
> --
> -
> Dipl.-Inf. Georg Fette Raum: B001
> Universität WürzburgTel.: +49-(0)931-31-85516
> Am Hubland Fax.: +49-(0)931-31-86732
> 97074 Würzburg mail: georg.fe...@uni-wuerzburg.de
> -
>
>
> ___
> 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
