Re: About parallel archetype editing
|
Isn't the convention that in a specialised archetype newly introduced
nodes get an at code à la at0.x , e.g. at0.1 for the first? In specialisation of a specialisation it would be at0.0.1. For specialisation an existing node at0001 it would be at0001.1, (or at0001.0.1 if it was specialised in a specialiation of an specialised archetype), etc. With this you don't have to decide on the number of required node codes in the parent in advance. Cheers Sebastian Stef Verlinden wrote: Maybe it's also a good time (if that wasn't already done:-) to agree on the numbering is AT nodes in locally specialized archetypes. Ny suggestion is that any specialisation should have an AT node code of 1000 (or even 10.000?) and higher. The point is that if the original archetype evolves in time and we don't do this it could occur that the 'official' AT code number start overlapping with the local specialization AT node codes. Which it that case makes that archetype worthless for local use. --
Skype: gardeseb |
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical