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

Diego Boscá yampeku at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 06:07:00 EST 2014


I like the idea, we were already exploring something similar to this for
intra-archetype semantic relationships.

I have two questions/suggestions:

-once the vsXXXX is intoduced, do we still need to specify it as "local".
Wouldn't be always be local from now on?
-I would suggest to use directly rdf triplets in the relationship part. I
think the proposal is too verbose. Also, it would be great if we could
define a set of relation types



2014/1/14 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>

>
> I have created a wiki page<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/ADL+1.5+-+where+to+define+value+sets>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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140114/d30f4bb4/attachment.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list