We're updating the issue view to help you get more done.Learn more

Sibling RM class that can represent terminology information are indistinguishable

In bot ADL2 and ADL, when using a reference model that allows to define codes in different classes it is not possible to know which class the constraint was originally applied to, which makes impossible to correctly generate and validate data. As an example, this happens in ISO13606, CDA, FHIR... in fact, it will happen in any standard that uses ISO21090. As an example, see this excerpt where it is impossible to parse ADL back (even if we know the RM we are working with):

ELEMENT[id11] matches {
                    value matches {[ac1]}

Suggested approach: allow putting RM type before the [acxxxx] code.
Solves the problem and requires no modifications to AOM, as rmtypename comes already from C_Object class by inheritance. This also makes ADL clearer as uses the 'same' syntax as every other C_object constraint (Complex object, slot, or proxy) in the form of CLASSNAME[code]





Diego Bosca