radical idea - where term value sets should be defined in archetypes.

Daniel Karlsson daniel.karlsson at liu.se
Tue Jan 14 05:52:24 EST 2014


Thomas and All,

[Sent to CIMI-list as well... Sorry for cross-posting]

>From what I can see the
difference, apart from syntax, from the current AOM is that value sets
are named objects by themselves. This would actually solve the problem
of
implementing the proposed CIMI terminology binding model in archetypes:
(using openEHR terminology biniding terminology) OBJECT bindings would
be term bindings of value sets, VALUE SET bindings would be assignment
of at-codes to value sets. Then it's just figuring out how those kinds
of bindings are to be used and explained to archetype users...

I see a number of alternative syntaxes for assigning at-codes to value
sets though, e.g.

["vs1001"] = <
   text = <"Blood pressure measuring position">
   description = <"Position of patient at time of measuring blood
pressure.">
   content = <"at1001"> <"at1002"> ...
 >

or

["at1001"] = <
   text = <"Standing">
   description = <"Standing at the time of blood pressure measurement.">
   valueset = <"vs1001"> <"vs1009">...
 >

This would probably enhance readability, as a archetype reader would
have to look in two places and not three places to determine the
contents of a value set.

Cheers,
Daniel

On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 10:04 +0000, Thomas Beale wrote:
> 
> I have created a wiki page to describe a possibly radical idea about
> how we define value sets (like body position etc) in archetypes. 
> 
> all feedback welcome.
> 
> - thomas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org






More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list