As I continue with my personal tooling for openEHR archetypes, I have gotten to the point where I need to parse the SECTION archetypes.
Based on the CKM Mirror (my test data), there are two immediate observations.
- There are not that many of them
- There seems to have been no activity on these types or archetypes for some time now.
Are they out of favour from a modelling style now? If so what approach is used instead?
There are no semantics in the SECTION archetypes - they are primarily for human navigation only, so it is unlikely they will be put through a publication process unless required for national/local level governance.
I use SECTION.adhoc almost universally, renaming it in the template as required.
There have been no requests for publication of the other SECTIONs. Those currently in the international CKM were uploaded as design guidance examples.
Thanks Heather - that makes perfect sense.
To add to Heather’s excellent explanation, the only reasons I use section archetypes (also exclusively SECTION.adhoc) are
- To make templates more readable and/or make it easier to include/exclude sections of a template at run time
- To make groups of archetypes repeatable together (for example an ACTION.medication together with an OBSERVATION.adverse_reaction_monitoring)
Edit: In case it was unclear, #2 allows the structural association of instances of ENTRY archetypes, to allow both the UI and later querying to know which OBSERVATION instance belongs together with which ACTION instance.