Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote: > The items in ontology are very limited, only text and description. I must > agree that this is not much, especially if you want the at-nodes being > explained by code systems. > But on the other hand, it is easy to introduce a sanity-rule. Let the text be > a code, and let the description be the indicator of the code-system involved. > > I must agree that it is not forced, thus weak. Better was to extend the > ontology with appropriate items. Do you think that would be a good idea?
Hi Bert, It's true that the only attributes for each term in the ontology are its at-code, plus its text and description. But this is not all that you can do with a term. * You can bind at-codes to terminology codes, to define the meaning of a node in various terminologies. * In ADL 1.5, you can add 'attributes' to a terms. These attributes are arbitrary code-value pairs. The openEHR Archetype Editor is still stuck on ADL 1.4 so it doesn't support this yet, but it does provide pretty much the same functionality by allowing arbitrary keys other than "code", "text" and "description" on the terms. This is a bit of a hack, but in the future when the archetypes using these non-standard term keys are converted to ADL 1.5, it should be a very straightforward process to move the non-standard keys automatically into the attributes section. Peter
