I have been thinking about profiling. I am not sure if this fix the problem regarding complexity. This may be an governance thing. If we define a metric and british imperial profile we may define that in Norway every application MUST use the metric profile and other countries may select ?british imperial?. This could make it easier to set up validation on entries.
Is this a usage you were thinking about? Vennlig hilsen Bj?rn N?ss Produktansvarlig DIPS ASA Mobil +47 93 43 29 10<tel:+47%2093%2043%2029%2010> From: openEHR-technical [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: 13. november 2014 22:04 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: Re: Postulate: DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest possible units On 13/11/2014 20:34, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote: The original context for this discussion was this archetype: http://arketyper.no/ckm/#showArchetype_1078.36.25 (default archetype language for this CKM is Norwegian, but it can be changed manually) Being an all-metric country since the 1800s, we've removed lbs as a possible unit, but added g (gram) for weighing infants. There is something I have been thinking about for a while, which is whether we need some kind of 'profiles' in archetypes, that can be used select or deselect alternative constraints. An 'alternative' in an archetype is technically 1. an alternative object constraint under a single-valued attribute; example: a DV_QUANTITY and a DV_COUNT as siblings under ELEMENT.value representing 'amount of tobacco' 2. any optional object under a container attribute, typically with other siblings 3. any branch of a tuple (ADL 2 speak) or branch of C_DV_QUANTITY - this is the units example So I have been thinking whether we need something like a profile section, with named profiles, pointing to the paths of things in (or not in) that profile. We could imagine profiles like: profiles = < ["metric"] = <path1, path2, ....> ["system international"] = <path1, path2, ....> ["british imperial"] = <...> ["us imperial"] = <...> > Now the question is whether this just applies to units, or whether it's more global. For example, could there be an argument to create profiles for 'general practice', 'icu', 'aged care'? Consider the example of the BP archetype. It contains 'systolic pressure', 'diastolic pressure', 'pulse pressure' and 'mean arterial pressure'. Now the last two are only used in anaesthesiology and specific instruments (from memory); one could imagine some profiles that would select out pulse pressure for just 'anaesthesiology'. Right now, this selection occurs by people specialising archetypes, and ultimately making templates, and along they way, getting rid of things they don't want, and keeping what they do. But there's no way you can run a query over an archetype library and filter it on some specialty, or even 'metric'. But there are many other reasons for specialising and removing / keeping elements as well - geographical, legislative, anything... So for now this remains just an idea - we would need some input from clinical modellers to know whether it's a useful one or not. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141114/05c3a926/attachment.html>
