Hi, «Any units» isn’t the same as “arbitrary units”. As I wrote below, “arbitrary units” in the context of biomedicine are units which are defined by biological activity, such as level of allergic reaction or enzymatic activity. This is done to be able to compare the concentration of different substances which have the same effects in different mass or volume amounts – birch pollen extract vs grass pollen extract (measured in SQ-U; standardized quality units), retinol vs betacarotene (measured in RE, retinol equivalents), human insulin vs insulin analogues (measured in IU, international units).
To be able to specify medication strength in a meaningful way, I need a numerator (amount active substance) and a denominator (amount helper substance). The numerator can be a mass (such as mg), a volume (such as ml) or an arbitrary unit (such as IU). The denominator can be a volume, a mass or an administration unit (such as tablet or puff). Since there can be approximately a million different variations on mass, volume and arbitrary units, I don’t want to specify them all in the archetype, but leave it up to the application, while still specifying the property (mass, volume or arbitrary). At the moment, I can’t do this for the arbitrary units element, since there’s no property in the openEHR units properties terminology set for arbitrary units. However, I’m starting to wonder if “<Property id="57" Text="Mass (IU)" openEHR="385" />” really is a misnamed “arbitrary units” property. Anyone know the origin of this? IU isn’t a mass unit, so it’s misnamed in any case (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_unit). Also, what would be really really neat, is a Quantity data type which could be any of a couple of a set of preselected properties (such as for instance mass, volume and arbitrary), and not just one fixed property. :o) Regards, Silje From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Pablo Pazos Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 12:37 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: RE: Quantities of arbitrary units in openEHR Hi Silje, When specifying the property but not the units, any units are allowed. This is saying "any units" which is similar to "arbitrary units". We can relax the spec to allow non-ucum as units (my interpretation of "any units" is any in ucum and compliant with the specified property, while "arbitrary" might be in or not in ucum, and compliant with the property). What do you think? On Jan 26, 2018 6:01 AM, "Bakke, Silje Ljosland" <silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no<mailto:silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no>> wrote: Deriving the properties from the codes makes sense when you actually specify the codes, but what do you do when you want to specify “this is a concentration, but I don’t care about the exact units”? “Arbitrary unit” has a quite specific meaning, it’s not just a catch-all for “new units for which we haven’t got the property defined in the terminology yet”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary_unit I see that IUPAC and IFCC has decided to use the term “procedure defined unit” instead of “arbitrary unit”. Also, does leaving the “property” field out mean that we can have one Quantity element with the units Cel, m, kg, ml and [arb'U]? Regards, Silje Fra: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>] På vegne av Diego Boscá Sendt: fredag 26. januar 2018 09:42 Til: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>> Emne: Re: Quantities of arbitrary units in openEHR I think there are several potential problems with this, and IMHO we are stepping too much on what should be done in a terminology service (We are literally talking about a 'public available UCUM service'). You can also ask the terminology service what kind of unit code you have. Your implementation could answer "arbitrary" for these new units. In my opinion, saying "here comes a mass unit code" is not much different from "here comes a diagnosis code", and we say these in a completely different way (a better way, if you ask me). Also, I'm not a big fan of "arbitrary" property, as feels like a "other" kind of terminology code that is potentially dangerous as knowledge or terminology advances, thus coexisting 'arbitrary' and 'new shiny type of measurements' all mixed up. That's why I also expect these properties to be as derived from the codes and not the other way around. 2018-01-26 9:21 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Garde <sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com<mailto:sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com>>: While I agree with the SPEC-95 rationale (once you have a unit, you should be able to know what its property is), it is still convenient to have the property for constraining. Otherwise you don't have a way to say in an archetype: I don't care about the exact unit here, but please let it be a "Mass". -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>] Im Auftrag von Thomas Beale Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2018 09:13 An: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Betreff: Re: Quantities of arbitrary units in openEHR Right - at the moment, it is a 'fake' field in archetypes, enabled by being in the BMM or other expression of the RM. It's convenient to do this occasionally, since we don't think 'property' needs to be a field of DV_QUANTITY - but maybe it should be, since for some of the more esoteric units, it's not that clear what is being measured. This trick is also not mentioned in the ADL/AOM specs, and it either should be, or we just don't allow it. I don't have a strong opinion either way. - thomas On 26/01/2018 07:51, Pieter Bos wrote: > A bit unrelated perhaps, but in the 1.0.3 and 1.0.4 RM specification, > there is no property attribute or function present in dv_quantity, > even though the text says it can be conveniently constrained. There is > a reference to the spec-95 jira issue, which says it has been removed. > So there’s no way to constrain it - unless the specification contains > a mistake :) > > It is present in the BMM variants of the RM though, as a mandatory field. > > Regards, > > Pieter Bos > _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- [VeraTech for Health SL]<https://htmlsig.com/t/000001C268PZ> [Twitter] <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001C47QQH> [LinkedIn] <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001C4DPJG> [Maps] <https://htmlsig.com/t/000001BZTWS7> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/htmlsig-assets/spacer.gif] Diego Boscá Tomás / Senior developer diebo...@veratech.es<mailto:diebo...@veratech.es> yamp...@gmail.com<mailto:yamp...@gmail.com> VeraTech for Health SL +34 961071863<tel:+34%20961%2007%2018%2063> / +34 627015023<tel:+34%20627%2001%2050%2023> www.veratech.es<http://www.veratech.es/> Su dirección de correo electrónico junto a sus datos personales forman parte de un fichero titularidad de VeraTech for Health SL (CIF B98309511) cuya finalidad es la de mantener el contacto con usted. Conforme a La Ley Orgánica 15/1999, usted puede ejercitar sus derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y, en su caso oposición, enviando una solicitud por escrito a verat...@veratech.es<mailto:verat...@veratech.es>. _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
