yes I agree with this. We should do something about it.
- thomas
On 26/01/2018 13:23, Bert Verhees wrote:
On 26-01-18 08:53, Sebastian Garde wrote:
This is where I think that not only it is stated that openEHR uses
UCUM (and not some part or “inspiration” of it), but also implies
that the case sensitive version of it is used (which in my view is
important to know at least for some of the units). I still think it
would be good to explicitly say that the case-sensitive version is used?
Just for the record, my point I wanted to make was that OpenEhr does
not define use of the facilities of UCUM (like properties and
conversions), as we see now in the discussion, which I think is very
useful and making use of UCUM facilities possible.
Quoting myself from a reply this morning:
> If it would, not only use the stringified units of UCUM, but also
would incorporate UCUM-defined functionality, it would also have, for
example, conversion routines from UCUM, which are usable for software
defined in the UCUM essence-file."
--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com>
Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare
<https://intermountainhealthcare.org/>
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
<http://www.openehr.org>
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
<http://www.bcs.org/category/6044>
Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog
<http://wolandsothercat.net/>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
