At 13:53 +1000 5/6/02, Thomas Beale wrote: >Tim Cook wrote: > >>For the model, DV_QUANTIFIED.accuracy is more appropriate. If, in >>an implementation, the developers want to accommodate users (person, >>instrument or external application) with a quantity. Then it can be >>converted to a percentage for storage and back again for display if >>desired. My point is that I agree with simplifying when something >>can/should be an implementation issue. >> >so in other words: represent and store as a % but allow input and >display as DV_QUANTITY or %? Hm... this might need an extra flag if >the DV_QUANTIFIED object is to remember whether it was originally in >% or quantity form. But that's still quite a bit simpler than what >we are doing now (especially as we have to have extra constraints in >there saying that DV_QUANTIFIED.accuracy.is_simple, meaning it >cannot have its own accuracy, as this would be meaningless. It would >be nice to get rid of this. I think I am convinced that just by >storing a percentage, we get the same effect as the current model. > >- thomas beale
Would it not be more elegant to make the (natural) assumption that the 'accuracy' will always have the same absolute unit as the primary quantity, with a separate flag to indicate a need to _display_ as "%"? This may have an additional advantage with downstream processing, since most useful calculations (eg statistical or difference comparisons) will be looking for absolute values. tony grivell > > >- >If you have any questions about using this list, >please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org -- .......................ooOoo........................... - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
