On 14/01/2014 10:52, Daniel Karlsson wrote:
> 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.
>
Yep, I'm ok with any of those. One version I originally thought of -
Daniel's first alternative above:
["vs1001"] = <
text = <"Blood pressure measuring position">
description = <"Position of patient at time of measuring blood pressure.">
content = <"at1001", "at1002", "at1003", ...>
>
We can put more or less any alternative that works - happy to see what
the discussion here might generate.
- thomas
