I wonder if this relates to fixing this issue in 1.24.7
The rule should be (as I understand it) don’t put terms on RM attributes unless they are LOCATABLE?
EVE NT_CONTEXT is not a LOCATABLE but ITEM_TREE is a LOCATABLE
I wonder if this relates to fixing this issue in 1.24.7
The rule should be (as I understand it) don’t put terms on RM attributes unless they are LOCATABLE?
EVE NT_CONTEXT is not a LOCATABLE but ITEM_TREE is a LOCATABLE
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question about paths to C_SINGLE_ATTRIBUTE alternatives | 7 | 46 | 23 November 2016 | |
| The good, the bad and the "Wat?" of current simplified FLAT/SimSDT openEHR exchange format | 45 | 1839 | 26 November 2025 | |
| LOCATABLE name with a SNOMED code | 18 | 1244 | 18 March 2024 | |
| archetypes - distniguishing multiple alternative constraints of a single-valued attribute | 7 | 29 | 17 July 2008 | |
| Possible error in AOM 1.4 | 7 | 487 | 16 February 2023 | |
| Adding a new method to the Archetype class | 9 | 62 | 30 January 2010 | |
| HISTORY, ITEM_TREE and other LOCATABLE at-codes | 1 | 11 | 1 June 2011 | |
| [EHRbase] Storing and querying data without an standalone archetype | 38 | 1142 | 17 April 2024 | |
| OPT2: node identification scheme | 11 | 638 | 6 November 2023 | |
| Questions about refinement via specialisation example (ADL2) | 1 | 403 | 6 May 2023 |