# Archetypes including inherited content

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/archetypes-including-inherited-content/14800>\
**Category:** Technical (archive)\
**Created:** [16 July 2008 11:46 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/archetypes-including-inherited-content/14800 "2008-07-16T11:46:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Adam\_Flinton](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/b782af/32.png) [@Adam\_Flinton](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Adam_Flinton)\
**Post date:** [16 July 2008 11:46 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/archetypes-including-inherited-content/14800/1 "2008-07-16T11:46:13Z")

</div>

Dear All,

Given we have a lot of archetypes which are then further versioned etc  
moving archetypes from one version to another can become a real pain  
based on their inherited content.

i.e. if B.v1 specializes A.v1 then it includes the content of A.v1

If we then create an A.v2 & wish to create a B.v2 which specialises A.v2  
(or even we have a b.v1draft which we we to change to  
specializing/extending A.v2) a manual process must ensue so that the  
content brought in from A.v2 replaces the content brought n from A.v1.

I have heard comment that this is changing so that Archetypes become  
like normal classes i.e. the superclass content does not appear in the  
subclass & if a given method does appear in the subclass then it  
overrides that in the superclass.

A) Is this so? If not it should be  
B) If this is so, any ideas wrt dates & tooling etc to support this (inc  
wrt the java tooling)?

TIA

Adam

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/thomas.beale/32/35_2.png) [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)\
**Post date:** [16 July 2008 13:21 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/archetypes-including-inherited-content/14800/2 "2008-07-16T13:21:52Z")

</div>

Hi Adam,

Adam Flinton wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Given we have a lot of archetypes which are then further versioned etc  
> moving archetypes from one version to another can become a real pain  
> based on their inherited content.
> 
> i.e. if B.v1 specializes A.v1 then it includes the content of A.v1
> 
> If we then create an A.v2 & wish to create a B.v2 which specialises A.v2  
> (or even we have a b.v1draft which we we to change to  
> specializing/extending A.v2) a manual process must ensue so that the  
> content brought in from A.v2 replaces the content brought n from A.v1.
> 
> I have heard comment that this is changing so that Archetypes become  
> like normal classes i.e. the superclass content does not appear in the  
> subclass & if a given method does appear in the subclass then it  
> overrides that in the superclass.
> 
> A) Is this so? If not it should be  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;  
> it is certainly the case. See the latest Archetype Workbench for details

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Adam\_Flinton](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/b782af/32.png) [@Adam\_Flinton](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Adam_Flinton)\
**Post date:** [18 July 2008 09:40 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/archetypes-including-inherited-content/14800/3 "2008-07-18T09:40:10Z")

</div>

Thomas Beale wrote:

> Hi Adam,
> 
> Adam Flinton wrote:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;
> 
> > Dear All,
> > 
> > Given we have a lot of archetypes which are then further versioned etc  
> > moving archetypes from one version to another can become a real pain  
> > based on their inherited content.
> > 
> > i.e. if B.v1 specializes A.v1 then it includes the content of A.v1
> > 
> > If we then create an A.v2 & wish to create a B.v2 which specialises A.v2  
> > (or even we have a b.v1draft which we we to change to  
> > specializing/extending A.v2) a manual process must ensue so that the  
> > content brought in from A.v2 replaces the content brought n from A.v1.
> > 
> > I have heard comment that this is changing so that Archetypes become  
> > like normal classes i.e. the superclass content does not appear in the  
> > subclass & if a given method does appear in the subclass then it  
> > overrides that in the superclass.
> > 
> > A) Is this so? If not it should be  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;  
> > it is certainly the case. See the latest Archetype Workbench for details  
> > -  
> > [http://www.openehr.org/svn/ref\_impl\_eiffel/TRUNK/apps/doc/adl\_workbench\_help.htm](http://www.openehr.org/svn/ref_impl_eiffel/TRUNK/apps/doc/adl_workbench_help.htm)
> 
> Start the AWB, set its repository to where your archetypes are, then hit  
> F7. You will see all archetypes being compiled, and .adls files being  
> created by differencing the existing .adl files. Have a look at the  
> .adls files of some specialised archetypes in a text editor. Also, you  
> can use the 'flat' and 'differential' views in the workbench to show the  
> effects of he new representation.

Oh good. This will help. Thanks.

> > B) If this is so, any ideas wrt dates & tooling etc to support this (inc  
> > wrt the java tooling)?  
> > &nbsp;&nbsp;  
> > I can't speak for the Java tooling, but the new version of the reference  
> > ADL parser (which is in the workbench) will go into the Archetype Editor  
> > during the next few months. Other changes that will be included are  
> > described in the new specialisation semantics in the ADL specification.  
> > See  
> > [http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+Templates+and+Specialised+Archetypes](http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+Templates+and+Specialised+Archetypes)  
> > for details.
> 
> As ever the speed of this work is dependent on funding.
> 
> - thomas beale

Yup this is part of my problem wrt knowing which implementations are at  
which level etc.etc

Adam