# should this simplification be allowed? **Category:** [Implementers (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/implementers-archive/158) **Created:** 2008-02-08 09:43 UTC **Views:** 5 **Replies:** 5 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/should-this-simplification-be-allowed/14735 --- ## Post #1 by @Cati_Martinez Hi, I'm testing my implementation about the openEHR specification, with some archetypes examples, and I'm finding things like this: CLUSTER\[at0018\] occurrences matches \{0 \.\.\*\} matches \{ name matches \{     CODED\_TEXT matches \{           code matches \{\[ac0002\]\} \} \} I'd like to follow the specification as much as possible, and I think that the correct way of expressing it, should have been: CLUSTER\[at0018\] occurrences matches \{0 \.\.\*\} matches \{ name matches \{     DV\_CODED\_TEXT matches \{           defining\_code matches \{                                DV\_CODE\_PHRASE matches\{                                           code\_string matches \{\[ac0002\]\}                  \}                         \}                    \}                 \} \} Am I wrong? Thank you very much --- ## Post #2 by @system Cati Martínez schreef: > Hi, > > I'm testing my implementation about the openEHR specification, with > some archetypes examples, and I'm finding things like this: > > CLUSTER\[at0018\] occurrences matches \{0 \.\.\*\} matches \{ name matches \{ >     CODED\_TEXT matches \{ >           code matches \{\[ac0002\]\} \} > \} > > I'd like to follow the specification as much as possible, and I think > that the correct way of expressing it, should have been: > > CLUSTER\[at0018\] occurrences matches \{0 \.\.\*\} matches \{ name matches \{ >     DV\_CODED\_TEXT matches \{ >           defining\_code matches \{ >                                DV\_CODE\_PHRASE matches\{ >                                           code\_string matches \{\[ac0002\]\} >                  \} >                         \} >                    \} >                 \} > \} > > Am I wrong? > Thank you very much >   I thought, a cluster should have elements? \(required\) Bert --- ## Post #3 by @Cati_Martinez Yes, it should have, I explain it better: CLUSTER\[at0018\] occurrences matches \{0 \.\.\*\} matches \{            name matches \{                CODED\_TEXT matches \{                    code matches \{\[ac0002\]\}                 \}             \} items cardinality matches \{0\.\.\*; unordered\} matches \{ \.\.\.\.\.\. \} \} I was talking about the property "name" of the cluster, I've seen this simplification in some archetypes\.\.\. I've been reading about it, and now I think that it is allowed by the openehr specification, It's a way of constraining the CODE\_PHRASE\. It avoids implying anything about the formal model of the type of the code attribute\. Thank you\. --- ## Post #4 by @thomas.beale The correct structure is shown in teh following example:                                     ELEMENT\[at0004\] matches \{ \-\- Height                                         name matches \{                                             DV\_CODED\_TEXT matches \{                                                 defining\_code matches \{                                                     \[local::                                                     at0005, \-\- Height                                                     at0006\] \-\- Length                                                 \}                                             \}                                         \}                                         value matches \{                                             C\_DV\_QUANTITY <                                                 property = <\[openehr::122\]>                                                 list = <                                                     \["1"\] = <                                                         units = <"cm">                                                         magnitude = <|0\.0\.\.1000\.0|>                                                     >                                                 >                                             >                                         \}                                     \} You could use an \[ac000n\] instead as well\. Your example is structurally correct; the attribute names just need to be fixed\. Did you see this in an archetype online? \- thomas beale Cati Martínez wrote: --- ## Post #5 by @Cati_Martinez Ok, thank you, Yes, this example is online at: http://oceaninformatics.biz/archetypes/en/openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.microbiology.v1.html --- ## Post #6 by @system Cati - these are very old and ADL 1.2. We have not been able to find any current link to these files. Please use the archetypes on openEHR.org Cheers, Sam Cati Martínez wrote: [details="(attachments)"] ![OceanC\_small.png|74x72](upload://5I367QG2SMJUp18Pt3jF6yz13Ey.png) [/details] --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/should-this-simplification-be-allowed/14735 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/should-this-simplification-be-allowed/14735