On 27-01-18 11:10, Bert Verhees wrote:
If one wants an UCUM term in the DvQuantity and another wants a SNOMED
term, it is both legal and possible.
What is preferable, that is not to us to decide while thinking about
OpenEhr.
But having said this....
Until now, in practice, people use the OpenEhr terminology for units
because that is what the tooling offers. This is not enforced by the RM,
but it is common practice.
Now UCUM emerge, and then it is also good to accept termbindings for
defining the property to restrict the units which may be used in the
DvQuantity.
But does this mean that it is not anymore allowed to use another
terminology to define a property, that UCUM would be part of the RM,
does this mean that OpenEhr will be inseparable connected to UCUM?
I don't think that is wise. It breaks with the standard philosophy of
OpenEhr to offer as much freedom as is possible to the archetype designer.
SNOMED offers also higher hierarchy concepts for properties, for
example, 118538004: Mass
Bert
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
