I agree with Ivar. In fact, UCUM has the unit /min to represent frequencies without a numerator unit.
El mié., 5 sept. 2018 a las 9:39, Ivar Yrke (<[email protected]>) escribió: > 1/min, definitely! > > > > Cardiac output is measured as liters/minute. Liters of what? We could have > used the unit liters{blood}/minute, but I have never seen that done. It is > considered obvious from the context. Likewise with other units. Velocity is > measure as meters/second, not meters{travelled}/second. One could argue > that meters{travelled} makes it clear that it is not meters{altitude}, but > that is generally considered obvious from the context. > > > > For some reason there is this temptation to add a fictive unit ({beats}, > {count} etc.) when the number itself is unit less. This is not necessary. > The context is always sufficient, just like in the cases that have a unit. > Let us cut through the unclarity of UCUM and keep it simple and basic. > > > > My argument is probably influenced by my background as a physicist. But if > no one has objected to 1/min in pulse/heartbeat, then I see no reason to > deviate from the basics in ECG or to modify pulse/heartbeat. > > > > Vennlig hilsen > > *Ivar Yrke* > > Senior systemutvikler > > DIPS AS > Telefon +47 75 59 24 06 > > Mobil +47 90 78 89 33 > > > > > *Fra:* openEHR-clinical [mailto:[email protected]] > *På vegne av* Heather Leslie > *Sendt:* 5. september 2018 08:00 > *Til:* For openEHR clinical discussions < > [email protected]> > *Emne:* ECG archetype advice required > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I’ve just been facilitating the most recent reviews on the ECG archetype > and would appreciate some advice on two issues. > > > > The current atrial and ventricular rates are modelled as a Quantity > (frequency) ie 1/min. However UCUM is unclear and there seems to be a few > options, including {Beats}/min, {beats}/min and {H.B} is represented in > another context, so maybe {H.B}/min is valid as well. Note that if we > decide that it is appropriate to modify to one of these specific UCUM > units, then to be consistent we will need to consider modifying the > Pulse/heartbeat OBSERVATION as well – currently also modelled as a > frequency of 1/min. > > > > In addition, I’d appreciate some advice as to how we could get access to > the latest draft of the ISO/IEEE standard for ECG – I think it is ISO/IEEE > 11073-10406. We’d like to make sure there is alignment between the standard > and the archetype before further reviews. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Heather > > > > *Dr Heather Leslie* > > MB BS, FRACGP, FACHI, GAICD > > M +61 418 966 670 > > Skype: heatherleslie > > Twitter: @atomicainfo, @clinicalmodels & @omowizard > > www.atomicainformatics.com > > (frequ > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > -- David Moner Cano Web: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner Twitter: @davidmoner Skype: davidmoner
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
