Thats great! As I said before, that cl[at0005] is a valid predicate according to the AQL specifications, so it should be acceptable not only in the WHERE clause, but also in the FROM clause.
Following the discussion between @siljelb and @ian.mcnicoll, my opinion is that if we use a path in the WHERE clause, it should be evaluated as a whole, matching with every instance it finds, and without trying to break it by its middle multi-valued objects to group them. That should be explicitly expressed in the FROM clause.
it is? Doesn’t it just mean nodes that are root points of the archetypes that created them, and are marked with the archetype id rather than an internal archetype node code. Interested to understand the ambiguity, relating to querying.
To me, that’s referring to a bunch of RM types which may be different according to interpretation. There’s been a historical difference between what can be archetyped and what the tools support (maybe that’s gone now), and what the clinicians prefer to archetype, as part of modelling. Agreeing upon a clear set of RM types as allowed types in the FROM clause is clearer to me. Highly personal view of course, but that’s where my confusion comes from.
ps: completely off topic but I’m being told that in recent years my perception has kinda “narrowed”. I seem to be getting stuck at ambiguities which do not exist to the other side of the conversation. No idea why but if this is another case, then sorry about it.