Usage of Compositoin.Category
thomas.beale at openehr.org
Fri Mar 4 03:50:15 EST 2016
Re: process, yes, it needs to be managed separately. Ian is the
terminology component owner. But I assumed Bjørn was talking about the
semantics of the new term - 'Report'. Bjørn - can you elaborate on what
Compositions would merit the 'report' Composition category?
On 04/03/2016 08:45, Heath Frankel wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> How did you come up with the concept id of 434? We need to be careful
> about assigning our own concept ids, we really need openEHR to assign
> these, I suggest through the SEC process initiated by a Jira card.
> At present we have two terminology files, as you know we have agreed
> to use the java implementation’s terminology xml file as the interim
> standard representation but there are already concept ids allocated in
> the Archetype Editor terminology file which existed before the
> terminology specification and the java implementation. In this case it
> looks like 434 is safe to use as it is not assigned to an openEHR
> concept in the Archetype Editor, but 435 is allocated to an openEHR
> concept in the setting group, which appears to be missing from the
> terminology specification and the java implementation xml.
> Let’s start using the SEC process for managing openehr terminology
> [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Bjørn Næss
> *Sent:* Friday, 4 March 2016 6:46 PM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions
> <openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org>
> *Cc:* Team Selecta <teamselecta at dips.no>
> *Subject:* SV: Usage of Compositoin.Category
> I just added a «composition category» on my fork of the terminology
> <group name="composition category">
> <concept id="431" rubric="persistent"/>
> <concept id="433" rubric="event"/>
> + <concept id="434" rubric="report"/>
> Any comments?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-technical