of
expressing '3 times/day for 7 days' or other typical things.
- thomas
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130814/b69a1618/attachment.html
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 08:11:50AM +0100, Thomas Beale wrote:
There is no assumption in ACTIVITY.time that the activity is
repeated. In the GTS syntax, you can just as easily express a one-off
event at a certain time as you can a repeated event. If you use cron
syntax, I think you just put a
On 14/08/2013 11:18, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 08:11:50AM +0100, Thomas Beale wrote:
There is no assumption in ACTIVITY.time that the activity is
repeated. In the GTS syntax, you can just as easily express a one-off
event at a certain time as you can a repeated event. If
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:41:58AM +0100, Thomas Beale wrote:
the problem isn't to do with not knowing which formalism is being
used - the DV_PARSABLE type takes care of recording that. I am just
saying that having too many alternative ways for implementers to
support is not necessarily a
/in/thomasbeale
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130814/080d9181/attachment-0001.html
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name
5 matches
Mail list logo