# Concerning the attribute CARE\_ENTRY.protocol

**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/concerning-the-attribute-care-entry-protocol/14474
**Category:** Clinical (archive)
**Created:** [24 March 2010 15:22 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/concerning-the-attribute-care-entry-protocol/14474 "2010-03-24T15:22:34Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Daniel\_Karlsson](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/daniel_karlsson/32/3383_2.png) [@Daniel\_Karlsson](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Daniel_Karlsson)
#### Post date: [24 March 2010 15:22 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/concerning-the-attribute-care-entry-protocol/14474/1 "2010-03-24T15:22:34Z")

</div>

Dear Everyone,

in quite some archetypes the optional attribute protocol of the CARE\_ENTRY class is made mandatory (occurrence is 1..1) although the underlying ITEM\_STRUCTURE may contain zero items (cardinality is 0..\* e.g. in the inevitable BP archetype). What is the rationale for this mandatoriness and is it possible to relax this occurrence constraint in the relevant archetypes?

Regards,  
Daniel

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [25 March 2010 10:52 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/concerning-the-attribute-care-entry-protocol/14474/2 "2010-03-25T10:52:04Z")

</div>

Hi Daniel

The archetype editor has put some mandatory constraints in various places in XML due to expression of existence. ADL did say that no expression of existence meant that it was mandatory – which is clearly wrong. The RM applies.

You should always have the most relaxed constraints possible in an archetype.

Cheers, Sam