Grahame Grieve wrote:
>
> I thought all the content of a single transaction was confined to a
> single language?
there is one point of view that all of a single _version_ must be a
single language, and another that says even this won't be realistic due
to patient respones in other languages.
>> - the possibility of the value being coded rather than just an
>> entered string.
>
> yes, indeed. But the DV_TEXT and DV_CODED_TEXT are too complex to be used
> as constructs where simple coded values are required. They may be
> appropriate
> for clinical coding, but in these simpler "infrastructural" coding,
> it's not so clear
DV_CODED_TEXT is pretty simple:
value[1]: STRING
definition[1]: COORDINATED_TERM
language[1]: COORDINATED_TERM
mappings[0..1]: LINKED_LIST [TERM_MAPPING]
formatting[0..1]: STRING
hyperlink[0..1]: DV_URI
I agree that it could be argued that formatting should be applied in
some other way (there used to be jsut a general purpose "emphasis" in
GEHR for example). Whether hyperlinks should be disallowed in basic
cases in the reference model is debatable as well. The ability to use
mappings will always be needed. In most cases, an instance of
DV_CODED_TEXT will have just the fields:
value[1]: STRING
definition[1]: COORDINATED_TERM
language[1]: COORDINATED_TERM
where a COORDINATED_TERM is:
code_string[1]: STRING
terminology_id[1]: TERMINOLOGY_ID -- the data of this is a STRING
I can't see getting out of it more simply than that.
- thomas beale
-
If you have any questions about using this list,
please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
