radical idea - where term value sets should be defined in archetypes.
pazospablo at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 23 10:47:57 EST 2014
I agree with Daniel's idea: having the terminology items physically inside the value set, so the value set itself will be a new terminological construct and we'll have both: terms and sets. This is clearer and simpler than havnig external relationships (is simpler to parse, implement in code and traverse the structure by a program).
BTW, I would prefer that "ontology" section would be called "terminology" in future versions of ADL/AOM. IMO this is more correct naming.
Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:45:21 +0000
> From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
> To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org
> Subject: Re: radical idea - where term value sets should be defined in archetypes.
> On 14/01/2014 10:52, Daniel Karlsson wrote:
> > 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.
> Yep, I'm ok with any of those. One version I originally thought of -
> Daniel's first alternative above:
> ["vs1001"] = <
> text = <"Blood pressure measuring position">
> description = <"Position of patient at time of measuring blood pressure.">
> content = <"at1001", "at1002", "at1003", ...>
> We can put more or less any alternative that works - happy to see what
> the discussion here might generate.
> - thomas
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-technical