Hi Pablo, I would agree, this information is also carried in the Archetype Editor property files, although I suspect not as well maintained as the UCUM file.
@Bjorn - I am not really sure why this is such a problem. As a modeller I would expect to remove any unwanted/unneeded units at template level. You would there fore only be having to deal with situations such as body weight where in your context both grams or kg might be specified. Again as a modeller I would want to reduce this complexity where possible but there must be clinical situation e.g very young children where some clinicians use grams and others use kg for exactly the same patients in exactly the same circumstances. Creating 2 different archetypes for each unit only moves the querying complexity elsewhere (arguably worse). @Thomas - the profile suggestion is interesting but it feels to me that it adds level of categorisation that is likely to be imprecise e.g map is certainly not just only used in anaesthesia, and even the use of imperial vs metric is likely to e somewhat blended in places e.g the UK where although metric is used officially, it is quite common for patients themselves to use imperial. Perhaps I am missing something? Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: ian at freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Director, openEHR Foundation Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 14 November 2014 00:07, pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bj?rn, > > IMO when you have complex unit processing, a lookup service for UCUM might > be needed. UCUM contains multipliers and correspondences between different > unit systems, check this: > > http://unitsofmeasure.org/ucum-essence.xml > > Using this, a constraint on archetypes might not be needed. What do you > think? > > -- > Kind regards, > Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > http://cabolabs.com > > ________________________________ > From: bna at dips.no > To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at > lists.openehr.org > Subject: Postulate: DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest possible > units > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:07:00 +0000 > > > I want to try out a postulate regarding modelling of datavalues, and more > specific DV_QUANTITY. > > > > The postulate is: > > > > Postulate 1: A data type of DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest > possible units! > > > > Reason behind this is to make queries and reasoning over the values easy. > This makes it both faster and safer building sustainable software and > systems using these values. > > I also think that converting between i.e. grams and kilos should be done in > the client (user interface / integration engine/ etc.). > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Vennlig hilsen > Bj?rn N?ss > Product Owner > DIPS ASA > > Mobil +47 93 43 29 10 > > > > > _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing > list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
