Actually - I did this concrete e-mail and addition to get some feedback on my previous e-mail :) And as you say Thomas: The most important thing now is to have some input on the concept or semantics of this new term.
Currently we are prototyping on this functionality to see how it would work regarding creating, saving and querying content based on these attributes. The concrete number, 434, was picked since it was not used and was in the same serie as the other category number. Vennlig hilsen Bjørn Næss Produktansvarlig DIPS ASA Mobil +47 93 43 29 10<tel:+47%2093%2043%2029%2010> Fra: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] På vegne av Thomas Beale Sendt: fredag 4. mars 2016 09.50 Til: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Emne: Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category Re: process, yes, it needs to be managed separately. Ian is the terminology component owner. But I assumed Bjørn was talking about the semantics of the new term - 'Report'. Bjørn - can you elaborate on what Compositions would merit the 'report' Composition category? - thomas On 04/03/2016 08:45, Heath Frankel wrote: Hi Bjorn, How did you come up with the concept id of 434? We need to be careful about assigning our own concept ids, we really need openEHR to assign these, I suggest through the SEC process initiated by a Jira card. At present we have two terminology files, as you know we have agreed to use the java implementation's terminology xml file as the interim standard representation but there are already concept ids allocated in the Archetype Editor terminology file which existed before the terminology specification and the java implementation. In this case it looks like 434 is safe to use as it is not assigned to an openEHR concept in the Archetype Editor, but 435 is allocated to an openEHR concept in the setting group, which appears to be missing from the terminology specification and the java implementation xml. Let's start using the SEC process for managing openehr terminology concepts. Regards Heath From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Bjørn Næss Sent: Friday, 4 March 2016 6:46 PM To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org><mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Cc: Team Selecta <teamsele...@dips.no><mailto:teamsele...@dips.no> Subject: SV: Usage of Compositoin.Category I just added a «composition category» on my fork of the terminology project. https://github.com/bjornna/terminology/commit/600dec3058cd85f9db3e5859d6bffa7f01a45edf <group name="composition category"> <concept id="431" rubric="persistent"/> <concept id="433" rubric="event"/> + <concept id="434" rubric="report"/> </group> Any comments?
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
