Redefining occurrences: example contradicts specification

Well, I think that would have to be understood as a special kind of shorthand, which at the moment ADL does not have. I am inclined to be more literal, and require explicit removal of all currently defined nodes in whatever level. If we wanted a shorthand for removing all idX, including idX children, I'd say we need a syntax modifier of some kind.

but people could expect no id1.X nodes as they have prohibited the one in the parent, not redefined in their children. I can see this as something you could want to say on your local templates, to just remove a node and all the specializations made in an intermediate archetype.

good example - I might add that to the spec. But I think it has a fairly obvious interpretation: in the flattened grandchild, what you have is:

Node[id1.1] {0..2}
Node[id1.2] {1..2}
Node[id1.3] {0..4}
Node[id1.3] {0..*}

Whereas the child had

Node[id1] {0..2}
Node[id1.1] {0..2}
Node[id1.2] {1..2}
Node[id1.3] {0..4}
Node[id1.3] {0..*}

i.e. the grandchild just knocks out just the id1 node (NB: it can't be id1, that's the root node, so the above should be understood to be something like di2, id2.x etc).

The AWB indeed processes it like this - see the attached screenshots.

What I fear is things like this example:

original archetype:
Node[id1] {0..*}

children archetype:
Node[id1.1] {0..2}
Node[id1.2] {1..2}
Node[id1.3] {0..4}
Node[id1.3] {0..*}

grandchildren archetype:
Node[id1] {0}

With respect to the original question about node-id redefinition, the correct rules are here: https://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/latest/docs/ADL2/ADL2.html#_node_identifiers_3

The sentence about redefining node id if occurrences is redefined is wrong - it is a hangover from an older version of ADL. I'll correct this.

@Diego, well you always have access to the parent, so you can detect the presence of occurrences there (or not) and determine that the child is defining new, or redefining. I can dig out the code in the AWB validator if you want to check.