HI, Am I wrong to observe that the differential is not Display and Non- Display, but Structured and Non-Structured?
The problem with the suggestions by Sam is that part of the information that is received is not visible. In order to accept data from a third party I need to see and judge both the visible and invisible parts of the Template. Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, MD Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252544896 M: +31 620347088 E: gfrer at luna.nl Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 On 18, Aug, 2008, at 7:06 , Sam Heard wrote: > Dear All (cross post) > > We are working in an environment where many applications and CDA > messages have information that is displayed as text and repeated > information in structured form. This also arises in applications > which have a formatted document plus structured information > (typically in primary care). > > I am proposing that we have a section archetype to manage this. The > archetype display script would not display any information about the > section itself (it would be invisible) and would display the first > subsection but not the second. The section archetype would be: > > Differential display > Display > Entries here will display > Non-display > Entries here will not display > This does mimic the CDA approach but does have the added benefit > that the displayed information can be structured as well (a > requirement from our customers who want to mix the textural content > and structured medication orders (ie not duplicate these in the > textural display). > > If this archetype arrived somewhere where it was not known the > generic display script would show the non-display information > (twice). This would be unlikely to cause errors especially as there > would be a heading Non-display. > > So that is the approach that we have considered. There is an > alternative - just have a non-display section. This has the > advantage that it could be added when required on an adhoc basis. > The major problem that I can see is that it would not be clear which > part of the record held the information that was redundant (ie where > it was being displayed). > > I would be interested in people's views of this approach to the > redundant structured data problem that arises from CDA and word > processor style record applications. > > Cheers, Sam > > > Cheers, Sam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080818/84ad2e06/attachment.html>
