Does including Duration in the RM fit with the scope for the RM? Why do we have archetypes? Why not include every thing in the RM? Do we want the HL7v3 Reference Model as it existed many years ago and that could not be inspected without a magnifying glass on a sheet of paper that was 2 by 1 meters?
Is there one kind of duration? 24 minutes, 5 seconds? For 2 hours past midnight? For 2 hours after (clinical) event x For 2 months after (clinical) event y Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [email protected] Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 21 Mar 2018, at 00:22, A Verhees <[email protected]> wrote: > > That is true, but I think it would be good if it would find its way in the > RM, for two reasons > 1) misusing the duration does not seem right, and I think the ISO string > representing a duration must change. That is, I know, a long way, so the part > before the 'T' should represent a calendar datatype, and the other part > should be a duration. It is also worth considering to split the DV_DURATION > type in the same way. > 2) If it find its formal way in the RM libraries will support it also, which > will help implementers to do it the right way. > > Bert
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
