Thomas Beale wrote: >> Are end users really supposed to see the DV_TEXT.value >> of those? I guess aplication logic and GUIs are better off trying to >> use the embedded CODE_PHRASE than relying on the possibly language >> dependent DV_TEXT.value for those fields/methods. > > a base assumption in openEHR historically is that the data might > arrive in some application space that doesn't have access to the > terminology. This can easily happen for many reasons. We don't want > the application to be useless (i.e. can't put stuff on the screen) > just because it can't see the terminology. Now, in these structural > attributes, you could expect that the openEHR terminology would be > available somewhere in the application space. However, for both > these situations, we historically decided that it was always better > to have the original text of any coded element, in the original > language.
When you say "in the original language", do you mean the original language of the archetype, or do you mean the original language that the user saw on the screen when the data was committed? For example, if an archetype's original language is English, but a user is viewing the text in Swedish, then which of the two languages would the DV_CODED_TEXT.value be committed in? - Peter Gummer
