Thomas and All, [Sent to CIMI-list as well... Sorry for cross-posting]
>From what I can see the difference, apart from syntax, from the current AOM is that value sets are named objects by themselves. This would actually solve the problem of implementing the proposed CIMI terminology binding model in archetypes: (using openEHR terminology biniding terminology) OBJECT bindings would be term bindings of value sets, VALUE SET bindings would be assignment of at-codes to value sets. Then it's just figuring out how those kinds of bindings are to be used and explained to archetype users... I see a number of alternative syntaxes for assigning at-codes to value sets though, e.g. ["vs1001"] = < text = <"Blood pressure measuring position"> description = <"Position of patient at time of measuring blood pressure."> content = <"at1001"> <"at1002"> ... > or ["at1001"] = < text = <"Standing"> description = <"Standing at the time of blood pressure measurement."> valueset = <"vs1001"> <"vs1009">... > This would probably enhance readability, as a archetype reader would have to look in two places and not three places to determine the contents of a value set. Cheers, Daniel On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 10:04 +0000, Thomas Beale wrote: > > I have created a wiki page to describe a possibly radical idea about > how we define value sets (like body position etc) in archetypes. > > all feedback welcome. > > - thomas > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
