Similarly to what I said for AQL in a recent post (Improve AQL to simplifying the querying of terms - #19 by damoca), we should avoid making any mention in the AOM to specific cases/classes of the RM. A rule talking of the validity of a C_OBJECT in relation to a LOCATABLE would only be usable in an openEHR environment.
damoca
(David Moner)
18
Related topics
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question about paths to C_SINGLE_ATTRIBUTE alternatives | 7 | 12 | 23 November 2016 | |
| The good, the bad and the "Wat?" of current simplified FLAT/SimSDT openEHR exchange format | 45 | 1701 | 26 November 2025 | |
| LOCATABLE name with a SNOMED code | 18 | 1205 | 18 March 2024 | |
| archetypes - distniguishing multiple alternative constraints of a single-valued attribute | 7 | 6 | 17 July 2008 | |
| Possible error in AOM 1.4 | 7 | 462 | 16 February 2023 | |
| Adding a new method to the Archetype class | 9 | 20 | 30 January 2010 | |
| HISTORY, ITEM_TREE and other LOCATABLE at-codes | 1 | 5 | 1 June 2011 | |
| [EHRbase] Storing and querying data without an standalone archetype | 39 | 1007 | 17 April 2024 | |
| OPT2: node identification scheme | 11 | 598 | 6 November 2023 | |
| Questions about refinement via specialisation example (ADL2) | 1 | 394 | 6 May 2023 |