Duration of 0 makes much more sense to me as a duration value of an instantaneous event.
On 11/16/07, Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 22:46 +1100, Andrew Patterson wrote: > > > Hi Tim, I just was going through my spam folder on gmail and found > > a few openehr emails from you - I don't know why gmail is flagging > > them as spam.. > > Maybe I should take that as a hint? ;-> > > > > The width attribute is defined as a DV_DURATION type and it is required. > > > However the text says that it should be Void if the Interval_Event is > > > instantaneous. There is also an invariant preventing width from being > > > Void. > > > > I always read this to mean "where the event is instantaneous > > (i.e a POINT_EVENT) the duration is void". So I would contend > > that an INTERVAL_EVENT cannot be instantaneous, > > rather than allowing the INTERVAL_EVENT duration to be 0. > > > > I agree that the wording could be better to clarify which interpretation > > is right.. > > > Well, I certainly agree that an instantaneous event cannot be an > interval event. However, there is some confusion in (my mind at least) > using the various DV_DURATIONS in History. But the biggest issue I have > is in dealing with the fact that an Interval Event has one and only one > DV_DURATION. DV_DURATION can never be Void. It MUST return a valid ISO > Date_Time value. > > > So maybe there is a typo somewhere in this chain but the fact is that we > have a serious conflict here. *If* an interval exists, then it's "width" > can never be Void because DV_DURATION does not allow a Void. > > Cheers, > Tim > > > > -- > Timothy Cook, MSc > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home > > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
