Yes, but what I mean is this
DV_ORDINAL [at0006] matches {
value matches {|2|}
symbol matches {
DV_CODED_TEXT matches {
value matches {???????????????????????} --
value is obligatory and I don't know what to put there
defining_code matches {[local::at0003]} -- +++
}
}
2012/4/4 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>
>
>
> There is a test archetype to show how to do this here. It looks like this
> in the AWB:
>
>
>
> Its definition is:
>
> ??? SOME_TYPE[at0000] matches {??? -- root item
> ??? ??? standard_ordinal_attr matches {
> ??? ??? ??? DV_ORDINAL [at0004] matches {
> ??? ??? ??? ??? value matches {|0|}
> ??? ??? ??? ??? symbol matches {
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? DV_CODED_TEXT matches {
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? defining_code matches {[local::at0001]}??? ??? --
> +
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? ??? DV_ORDINAL [at0005] matches {
> ??? ??? ??? ??? value matches {|1|}
> ??? ??? ??? ??? symbol matches {
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? DV_CODED_TEXT matches {
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? defining_code matches {[local::at0002]}??? ??? --
> ++
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? ??? DV_ORDINAL [at0006] matches {
> ??? ??? ??? ??? value matches {|2|}
> ??? ??? ??? ??? symbol matches {
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? DV_CODED_TEXT matches {
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? defining_code matches {[local::at0003]}??? ??? --
> +++
> ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? }
> ??? ??? clinical_ordinal_attr_1 matches {
> ??? ??? ??? 0|[local::at0001], ??? -- +
> ??? ??? ??? 1|[local::at0002], ??? -- ++
> ??? ??? ??? 2|[local::at0003]; ??? -- +++
> ??? ??? ??? 0? ??? -- assumed value
> ??? ??? }
> ??? }
>
> You can treat the local terms like any other terms for the pruposes of
> generating the 'value' in data.
>
> - thomas
>
>
>
> On 04/04/2012 11:03, Diego Bosc? wrote:
>
> If you have the following dv_ordinal
>
> value existence matches {1..1} matches {
> 1|[local::at0044],
> 2|[local::at0045],
> 3|[local::at0046]
> }
> }
>
> and you transform it to a standard representation you get something like
> this:
>
> ...
>
> DV_ORDINAL occurrences matches {0..1} matches { --
> symbol existence matches {1..1} matches {
> DV_CODED_TEXT occurrences matches {0..1} matches { --
> defining_code existence matches {1..1} matches {
> CODE_PHRASE occurrences matches {0..1} matches { --
> terminology_id existence matches {1..1} matches {
> TERMINOLOGY_ID occurrences matches {0..1}
> matches { --
> value existence matches {1..1} matches
> {"local"}
> }
> }
> code_string existence matches {1..1} matches
> {"at0050"}
> }
> }
> }
> }
> value existence matches {1..1} matches {1}
>
> ...
>
> Taking into account that DV_CODED_TEXT 'value' attribute is
> obligatory, what should be put on that when generating the standard
> representation of an ordinal?
> Specifications say: "For DV_CODED_TEXT, this is the rubric of the
> complete term as provided by the terminology service", but as
> terminology is local so I don't really know if it applies at all in
> this case
>
> Regards
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Beale
> Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics
>
> Chair Architectural Review Board, openEHR Foundation
> Honorary Research Fellow, University College London
> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
> Health IT blog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
