# Inconsistency in REST API Create EHR implementations -needs spec clarification?

**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/inconsistency-in-rest-api-create-ehr-implementations-needs-spec-clarification/1199
**Category:** ITS
**Created:** [4 January 2021 15:36 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/inconsistency-in-rest-api-create-ehr-implementations-needs-spec-clarification/1199 "2021-01-04T15:36:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![sebastian.iancu](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sebastian.iancu/32/31_2.png) [@sebastian.iancu](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.iancu)
#### Post date: [7 January 2021 19:15 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/inconsistency-in-rest-api-create-ehr-implementations-needs-spec-clarification/1199/10 "2021-01-07T19:15:11Z")

</div>

I’m strongly against making exceptions or workarounds or relaxing things in rest api specs - let’s keep specs consistent and predictable. So we should keep name and archetype\_node\_id mandatory, those are not really noise.

If you need some artifacts, here I’ve upload some close to what we use in our production: [EHR\_STATUS a locatable?](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/ehr-status-a-locatable/1055/4)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/inconsistency-in-rest-api-create-ehr-implementations-needs-spec-clarification/1199)._