In my system there is an implied difference between ~ (approximate) and
I(inaccurate)
~ => this value is approximate but "correct" (and can be used for clinical
management/decision support/graphing etc)
whereas I => not to be relied on, usually with some accompanying reason.
Regards
Vince
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Beale
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: Pathology numeric values not supported in DV_Quantity
Grahame Grieve wrote:
hi
I don't think that the concept of <,> etc should
be conflated with the concept of approximately
and doubtful in the model. the approximate and doubtful always raise the
issue of why and how and so I think that should be a matter for the archetype
to resolve. However < and > etc, should be a data type thing.
Grahame
Grahame, you are right - to express ">5 (inaccurate)" we need two flags...
I can't think of great names of the top of my head, but how about:
a.. value_qualifier - the attribute that carries the <, >, = etc
b.. value_status - an attribute that carries some other possible flags,
e.g. ?, ~, others?
I am suggesting that Vince's '~' is more like a data quality marker than an
indicator of how to read the value...'?' means inaccurate....possibly wildly?
Are '~' and '?' really different? If the second flag was just to say accurate /
inaccurate then we could just use a Boolean. That would probably cover 95% of
needs and be simple at the same time....Vince - any comments on that?
I think we are close to a solution here.
- thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060303/b146c3f9/attachment.html>
