definition of custom fields in archetypes

Technical (archive)
1

Hallo,
I have a question about the degree of freedom in defining archetypes:
Archetypes are not composed but rather specified by constraining the base classes from the reference model. Hence no new/custom field members can be definied in the definition of a new archetype but only the field members already existing in the base classes have to be used. So there will never be a path like

a/myField/myProperty/value

but always just something like

a/data/events/items/value

The same applies for the definition of templates.
Is this correct ?
Greetings
Georg

2

Hi Georg,

Yes that is absolutely correct. The archetypes act as a constraint on the RM so must always be compliant with the RM, and whatever underlying archetype class is selected. Same applies to templates. Practically speaking this does still give us a huge amount of flexibility, especially as we can add cluster archetypes in Slots, which is very useful when trying to align with legacy system data.

Ian