# Shouldn't INSTRUCTION\_DETAILS.wf\_details be archetypable?

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/shouldnt-instruction-details-wf-details-be-archetypable/15448>\
**Category:** Clinical (archive)\
**Created:** [12 July 2016 05:06 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/shouldnt-instruction-details-wf-details-be-archetypable/15448 "2016-07-12T05:06:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pablo](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/pablo/32/3505_2.png) [@pablo](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/pablo)\
**Post date:** [12 July 2016 05:06 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/shouldnt-instruction-details-wf-details-be-archetypable/15448/1 "2016-07-12T05:06:24Z")

</div>

Looking at the model, INSTRUCTION\_DETAILS.wf\_details is an ITEM\_STRUCTURE, and that lead me to think that should be archetypable.

Playing around with the archetype editor, it doesn’t allow to archetype anything inside INSTRUCTION.instruction\_details.

Is this a problem of the AE or that structure is not meant to be archetyped?

If it is not meant to be archetyped, wouldn’t that be an issue for querying?

Thanks!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pablo](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/pablo/32/3505_2.png) [@pablo](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/pablo)\
**Post date:** [12 July 2016 05:09 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/shouldnt-instruction-details-wf-details-be-archetypable/15448/2 "2016-07-12T05:09:34Z")

</div>

I made a mistake, when I said “INSTRUCTION.instruction\_details” was really “ACTION.instruction\_details”. Sorry! 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e19b73/32.png) [@Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Heath_Frankel3)\
**Post date:** [13 July 2016 00:15 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/shouldnt-instruction-details-wf-details-be-archetypable/15448/3 "2016-07-13T00:15:09Z")

</div>

Hi Pablo,

Since wf\_details is ITEM\_STRUCTURE, then yes it can be archetyped. Just because the AE doesn’t support it does not change this fact. As is this case in many software projects, functionality in the AE was built on as needed basis so I would suggest that no one has needed it to date. Since the AE was almost 100% contributed by Ocean Informatics, the priorities around “as needed” was evaluated by Ocean. However, the AE is open source so others can add their own capabilities if they desire.

Heath

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![yampeku](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/yampeku/32/25_2.png) [@yampeku](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/yampeku)\
**Post date:** [13 July 2016 06:55 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/shouldnt-instruction-details-wf-details-be-archetypable/15448/4 "2016-07-13T06:55:13Z")

</div>

Hello Pablo,

For these kinds of use cases I'd really recommend you to try LinkEHR.  
You should be able to define anything valid in the openEHR schema.  
We went to the extent to add an 'export' option to ensure that the  
output ADL could be read by Archetype Editor and Template Designer, so  
you don't need to change your workflow.

Regards

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pablo](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/pablo/32/3505_2.png) [@pablo](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/pablo)\
**Post date:** [14 July 2016 04:21 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/shouldnt-instruction-details-wf-details-be-archetypable/15448/5 "2016-07-14T04:21:42Z")

</div>

Thanks Heath, I was under the impression that this was an AE constraint.

I know the tool has it’s restrictions and I would love to contribute, but I’m not very good with the technology stack on which the AE was created. I hope others can jump in and fill the blanks 🙂

Thanks!