# Inconsistency in demographic specs **Category:** [General Discussion](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/general-discussion/132) **Created:** 2022-10-11 01:12 UTC **Views:** 887 **Replies:** 1 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/inconsistency-in-demographic-specs/3052 --- ## Post #1 by @pablo In https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/demographic_im.pdf ``` ACTOR.roles is 0..1 ACTOR.languages is 0..1 ``` In https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/Release-1.0.2/demographic.html (same spec and version, just the HTML version ``` ACTOR.roles is 1..* ACTOR.languages is 1..* ``` I believe the PDF version is using the existence cardinality and the HTML version is using the cardinality of the list. Though if the attribute can be optional `(existence 0..1)`, then de cardinality can't be `1..*`, unless the interpretation is: the attribute is optional, though if it's present, then it should contain at least one element. Note the `languages` type in the PDF is declared as `List [0..1]`, and in the HTML it's `DV_TEXT [1..*]`, so the List is omitted (implicit type). Same happens with ACTOR.roles. Also PARTY.reverse_relationships in the PDF is `Set [0..1]` while in the HTML it's `LOCATABLE_REF [0..*]`. In the HTML specs for demographics on 1.0.3, 1.0.4 and 1.1.0, it follows how types are defined in the 1.0.2 spec in HTML. I found those differences confusing. The problem is the JSON schemas I'm working on, depend on the correct interpretation of the spec's existence and cardinality. --- ## Post #2 by @pablo I have created an issue on JIRA to check the inconsistency https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-397 --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/inconsistency-in-demographic-specs/3052 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/inconsistency-in-demographic-specs/3052