I think it is a weak point to have a file which contains an archetype having the same name as the archetype-id.
This policy is enforced by as well the OCEAN-editor as the LinkEHR editor (however the latter has a bug in this).
I don't know if it is "officially" specified. But the disadvantage is that information is stored twice in the same file (in the contents and in the filename), this can cause problems, ambiguities.
Also, it is unnecessary restrictive, it is impossible to store more archetypes in one text-file.
Many programming languages have the same restriction, but often the have also workarounds for this restriction.
yes, you are right. It’s not required, and the ADL Workbench and Ocean Template Designer don’t care about the file name. It’s a straightforward matter for all tools to remove this restriction (it means running a micro-parser across all the files to read the first line or few lines, so that an explorer / browser widget can be populated).
I would say the reason to show those 3 alternatives was to prevent the
user to overwrite a potential xxxxx.v1 archetype with a xxxxx.v2
archetype. It seems like it can be annoying sometimes so we should
make it a configuration option (and switched off by default).