2006/12/8, Thomas Beale <Thomas.Beale at oceaninformatics.biz>: > > Mattias Forss wrote: > > Does this mean that the ratio constraint could as of now be removed from > the archetype editors? Will the DV_RATIO class be removed from the > specifications as well? If not, should the editors change the current ratio > constraint to be of a DV_RATIO instead of a DV_QUANTITY_RATIO? > > this is the expected approach. I know it is annoying for us to make this > software change, but we cannot escape the fact that there were some > categories of clinical data that were not properly addressed by the current > data types. >
Not sure what your answer is here, can the ratio constraint be removed from the editors or not? I think that the new DV_PROPORTION class could be used instead of > DV_QUANTITY when there are no units, e.g. only the property 'Qualified > real' and the empty string as a unit or a missing unit attribute in the item > list of C_QUANTITY and only a magnitude attribute. The current ADL parser > doesn't expect empty or null units which is correct according to the > specification of C_QUANTITY_ITEM in the archetype profile package. Hence, > there should always be a unit specified for each item in the item list of > C_QUANTITY in archetypes and it cannot be empty because quantified data with > no units could be represented with the DV_PROPORTION data type, right? > > DV_COUNT will take care of countable things - also with no units. > Otherwise, anything else with no units I think will end up being a > DV_PROPORTION - is we think of "proportion" as the idea of "relative > amount", "how much of a total", then it is quite a wide concept that is > likely to cover many situations. Sam and I believe your assumption is pretty > safe at the moment. > Understood, the proportion data type makes a lot more sense than the DV_QUANTITY_RATIO which allowed a lot of different quantifiable data types. There is no need to make things more complicated than they are and the simplification with DV_PROPORTION is great. If you have a look at the blood film archetype (here: > http://my.openehr.org/wsvn/knowledge/archetypes/dev/adl/openehr/ehr/entry/observation/openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.blood_film.v1.adl?op=file&rev=0&sc=0) > you will see that the elements named 'Packed cell volume (PCV)' and > 'Plateletcrit' are quantity data types with empty units, but maybe they > could be changed to proportion data types instead? If not, then the > specification of C_QUANTITY_ITEM must be changed. > > Sam - I imagine this is right - can you check this? > > Although we have not yet uploaded cleaner archetypes with all the changes > everyone wants, we have nearly done all the changes to the tools, and the > next generation of archetypes on the openEHR website should address > everything. After that we should be able to proceed faster, since I think we > will have removed all the anomalies in tools with respect to the > specification, and also fixed a few anomalies in the specfication. > It would be great if the archetypes could be updated soon. Could I get a listing of the changes so I can update the Java archetype editor accordingly? Regards, Mattias -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20061208/32ffad79/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
