I agree with both your comments Pablo William
-----Original Message----- From: openEHR-technical [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of openehr-technical-request at lists.openehr.org Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 6/18:00 PM To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 23, Issue 8 Send openEHR-technical mailing list submissions to openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.or g or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to openehr-technical-request at lists.openehr.org You can reach the person managing the list at openehr-technical-owner at lists.openehr.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: radical idea - where term value sets should be defined in archetypes. (pablo pazos) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:47:57 -0300 From: pablo pazos <[email protected]> To: openeh technical <openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org> Subject: RE: radical idea - where term value sets should be defined in archetypes. Message-ID: <SNT145-W65905E43046E2488E23448C8A60 at phx.gbl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" HI all, I agree with Daniel's idea: having the terminology items physically inside the value set, so the value set itself will be a new terminological construct and we'll have both: terms and sets. This is clearer and simpler than havnig external relationships (is simpler to parse, implement in code and traverse the structure by a program). BTW, I would prefer that "ontology" section would be called "terminology" in future versions of ADL/AOM. IMO this is more correct naming. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:45:21 +0000 > From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com > To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: radical idea - where term value sets should be defined in archetypes. > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.open > ehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/atta chments/20140123/dcca19de/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.or g ------------------------------ End of openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 23, Issue 8 ************************************************
