On 09/01/2013 02:54 AM, Peter Gummer wrote:
Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl wrote:
The items in ontology are very limited, only text and description. I must
agree that this is not much, especially if you want the at-nodes being
explained by code systems.
But on the other hand, it is easy to introduce a sanity-rule. Let the text
be a code, and let the description be the indicator of the code-system
involved.
I must agree that it is not forced, thus weak. Better was to extend the
ontology with appropriate items. Do you think that would be a good idea?
Hi Bert,
It's true that the only attributes for each term in the ontology are its
at-code, plus its text and description. But this is not all that you can do
with a term.
* You can bind at-codes to terminology codes, to define the meaning of a node
in various terminologies.
* In ADL 1.5, you can add 'attributes' to a terms. These attributes are
arbitrary code-value pairs. The openEHR Archetype Editor is still stuck on
ADL 1.4 so it doesn't support this yet, but it does provide pretty much the
same functionality by allowing arbitrary keys other than code, text and
description on the terms. This is a bit of a hack, but in the future when
the archetypes using these non-standard term keys are converted to ADL 1.5,
it should be a very straightforward process to move the non-standard keys
automatically into the attributes section.
Thanks Peter, for your information. As soon as ADL 1.5 is official, I
will study what I can do with it. I hear a lot of good things about this
new version.
Bert
