Skip to Navigation | Skip to Content

openEHR-Technical mailing list archives

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Run-time name constraints and appropriate use of terminologies



You will have to excuse my failing eyesight - I read 'legal_entity' not 'legal_identity'. I realise now that Sebastian was referring to the has_legal_identity() function in the invariants of ACTOR. I think there is a problem in the model here - we either should get rid of this function, as Sergio suggests, or else we need to add something more to the model, so that the function can indeed be impelmented in a reasonable way. Which we do depends on whether we think it is reasonable to force all ACTORs (in all openEHR demographic data, forever!) to have a 'level identity'. This is the debate we need to have. My feeling today is that it is probably too restrictive.

- thomas


On 31/08/2010 11:16, Thomas Beale wrote:
On 26/08/2010 09:27, Sebastian Iancu wrote:
Hi Ian,

I was not thinking on names attribute of an archetype as holding more than names. Yet, the demographic_im.pdf is suggesting/stating to use them to associate a type meaning the the owner objects (i.e. things like PERSON/name/value = "PERSON" or ROLE/name/value = "General practitioner"), and for some objects the purpose() is designed that way as well.

As you previously said, there can be RM-types and Archetype-types and the later is introduced in demographic package through this construction of 'name' attribute. As long as the scope of that 'type' is within (or related) that owner archetype domain I don't see any problem, but if that that 'type' need used outside I don't really see it working, without a proper coding system or at least a binding.

Maybe I was not very clear in previous emails about my reasoning, maybe I am just confused about specifications or about the modeled archetypes on CKM, but nevertheless one of my main technical question remains:
how can a function like ACTOR.has_legal_identity() be implemented regardless the archetypes being used?

that can only be done if the concept 'legal_entity' is also hardwired into the information model, which is exactly what we are avoiding via the use of archetypes. A function like this would make more sense with a template-generated programming object, not the base RM objects. A template, based on specific archetypes might have a legal_entity defined somewhere, and this could be queried with a hardwired function.

Otherwise the approach has to be to implement functions like this using AQL or similar queries that make use of paths from available archetypes. But in this case you would not be doing ACTOR.has_legal_entity, but a query over the whole demographic repository, or some subset of it, which searches for ACTOR objects containing the specific path.

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