Just discovered this topic.
For me this is a nice example case of my recently initiated discussion about reusing more elements/clusters between archetypes.
In my mind the only ‘right’ way to model Siljes example would be to remove the element Body site and only use the cluster. I understand this adds some overhead but not sure how big the overhead is?
What we could do to help implementers is to offer a template where the cluster is already configured. Or to embed a ‘template’ overlay on the cluster in the observation, or is that not allowed in the current RM?
The usecase is indeed the querying. I think there is tremendous value on “give me everything to do with the left eye” and this also goes for most other archetyped data: “give me everything to do with blood pressure” should return an observed bp, the instruction for the order to measure BP, the action where the activity was registered, the evaluation where the diagnosis high blood pressure was recorded. So to me blood pressure as a medical concept should be a cluster. As should maybe all other elements…
To me medical data is associative/relation: all data relates to other data. I think the RM has a lot of features to model this ‘properly’. But we use very little.
What if we put all elements in a cluster, like we now do not put any data elements in a composition for reuse purposes.