Peter Gummer <peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
>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 > > >_______________________________________________ >openEHR-technical mailing list >openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org >http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
