Re: Term bindings in archetypes and templates

[Thomas Beale <thomas.beale@oceaninformatics.com>]

On 11/03/2010 15:57, Sheng,Yu wrote:

If term bindings or constraint bindings exist in Archetypes before they 
are made into templates, how are the terminology subsets subsequently 
added to templates? Are they completely new termsets, 
somehow-related-to, or ontologically-subsumed-by the original ones in 
the associated Archetypes? Isn't it true that if binding in a template 
is not on the basis of subsumption, the template is not really a 
constrained form of the archetype...
  

that would be true, if it were true... in the current release of openEHR, ADL/AOM 1.4 only implies that such bindings should obey a subsumption relationship. In the ADL/AOM 1.5 specifications this is stated, but it can only be formally enforced within an archetype if some formal subset relationship could be asserted between distinct subsets (say, 'all bacterial infections' and 'all bacterial lung infections'). As far as I know, such a relationship, while mathematically easy enough to define, is not recognised in any of the machinery associated with current terminologies or products, so we will have to wait a bit longer for that.

- thomas beale

_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical