Also, take into account that if you use DV_PROPORTION to represent this
percent, you will always have this double quantity stored in your data,
which doesn't really add nothing of value and just will slow down your
queries.

Regards

El jue., 3 ene. 2019 10:30, Ian McNicoll <i...@freshehr.com> escribió:

> Hi Marcus,
>
> I think that is the intended use. It is the case that UCUM has a '%' unit
> as part of DV_QUANTITY which I think I have only ever used in the context
> of integrating a lab test where the 'proportionality' of the value is not
> really relevant i.e it is in some ways an arbitrary unit.
>
> Ian
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 09:20, Marcus Baw <marcus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As a relative OpenEHR outsider but a data modelling enthusiast, I would
>> agree with Silje that if this is known to be a proportion then using
>> DV_PROPORTION seems more intuitive, as this preserves the semantics of the
>> data. It also would allow confident conversion of that data into other
>> types of proportion (eg per-thousand or PPM)
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 08:57, Bakke, Silje Ljosland <
>> silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no> wrote:
>>
>>> I would have guessed it would be the other way around. If you know at
>>> design time that this value will be a percentage, use the DV_PROPORTION
>>> data type with the ‘type’ attribute set to 2 (percent, denominator fixed to
>>> 100). On the other hand if you don’t know for sure (such as for some lab
>>> results or medication strengths which could be for example mg/ml or %
>>> interchangeably), you would use DV_QUANTITY.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> *Silje*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* openEHR-clinical <openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> *On
>>> Behalf Of *David Moner
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:37 AM
>>> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <
>>> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
>>> *Cc:* For openEHR clinical discussions (
>>> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org) <openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is
>>> not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the
>>> numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which should
>>> not be the case with percentages. But it is true that the definition of the
>>> type attribute in the specification is a bit misleading: "Indicates
>>> semantic type of proportion, including percent, unitary etc."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El jue., 3 ene. 2019 a las 7:59, Bakke, Silje Ljosland (<
>>> silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no>) escribió:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone, happy new year!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We’ve just hit a question about modelling choices, how to represent
>>> percentages. We have a data type DV_PROPORTION, which can be used to
>>> represent any proportion such as a fraction or a percentage, and we have
>>> the DV_QUANTITY data type which can have % as the unit. In most existing
>>> archetypes such as the OBSERVATION.pulse_oximetry archetype, we’ve used the
>>> DV_PROPORTION data type for the percent elements, while for some reason in
>>> the draft EVALUATION.alcohol_consumption_summary archetype we’ve chosen
>>> DV_QUANTITY with the unit ‘%’ for the “Strength” element.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We’ve had a look at the data types documentation (
>>> https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/data_types.html),
>>> and we can’t really find any guidance in the examples there. Is there any
>>> guidance about this anywhere else? Does anyone have any opinions about when
>>> to use each data type for percentages?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> *Silje Ljosland Bakke*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Information Architect, RN
>>>
>>> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
>>> Nasjonal IKT HF, Norway
>>>
>>> Tel. +47 40203298
>>>
>>> Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: @arketyper_no
>>> <https://twitter.com/arketyper_no>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> David Moner Cano
>>>
>>> Web: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner
>>>
>>> Twitter: @davidmoner
>>>
>>> Skype: davidmoner
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>>> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Reply via email to