On 04/03/2010 12:57, Peter Gummer wrote: > 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? >
it is the latter - the archetype's original language is irrelevant - we are only interested in the locale language of the committing user, which could easily be different. - thomas * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100304/029cac32/attachment.html>
