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

Redefining occurrences: example contradicts specification

In https://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/latest/docs/ADL2/ADL2.html#_occurrences_redefinition_and_exclusion , the specification says:

'If occurrences is redefined on an identified node, the node identifier must be specialised.'

Then an example follows that shows the redefinition of ocurrenes on an identified node. In the example, the same node identifier id4 is used both in the parent and child archetype - so no specialised node identifier is used.
Which one of these two is correct?

The examples after that show exclusion (occurrences matches {0}). Which is allowed specifically with the same node id according to earlier parts in the specification. So a non-specialised node identifier is at least allowed in some cases.

another trivial thing: Also the text says the example redefines the occurrences of id3, the example does it on id4.





Pieter Bos