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.
Related topics
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The good, the bad and the "Wat?" of current simplified FLAT/SimSDT openEHR exchange format | 45 | 1661 | 26 November 2025 | |
| LOCATABLE name with a SNOMED code | 18 | 1180 | 18 March 2024 | |
| Possible error in AOM 1.4 | 7 | 456 | 16 February 2023 | |
| [EHRbase] Storing and querying data without an standalone archetype | 39 | 917 | 17 April 2024 | |
| OPT2: node identification scheme | 11 | 582 | 6 November 2023 | |
| Questions about refinement via specialisation example (ADL2) | 1 | 393 | 6 May 2023 | |
| Found an interesting case when an OPT might be invalid and I think modeling tools are not checking it | 6 | 720 | 12 July 2023 | |
| AOM/TOM semantics for cardinality constraints and occurrences in children | 9 | 625 | 19 August 2021 | |
| Coding element and event names | 56 | 1124 | 4 December 2024 | |
| Proper way of discerning between siblings that are instances of the same archetype in COMPOSITION | 7 | 712 | 13 November 2019 |