On 09/01/2013 02:54 AM, Peter Gummer 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. Thanks Peter, for your information. As soon as ADL 1.5 is official, I will study what I can do with it. I hear a lot of good things about this new version.
Bert
