On 21-03-18 10:50, GF wrote:
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
2 months cannot be technically represented in a duration, because month
is not a stable time-definition. It is a Calendar definition.
It is therefor that most major programing languages have a Duration and
a Calendar class.
Or you say that OpenEhr has no valid Duration-datatype, so always
express Duration in an archetype (your way),
or say that OpenEhr has a valid Dv_Duration type, and do it right (I
prefer this way),
or express months as if it is a stable time-indicator and ignore it is
not (like it is now)
Those are the three possible ways to solve this problem, I think
I am curious to learn what the community will decide.
Bert
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
