Units, Quantities, etc

Graham, I'm trying to make sense of this discussion around computability -- what are the kinds of things that one wants to compute with these kinds of countable things? michael On 18/03/12 10:57 PM, Grahame Grieve grahame at healthintersections.com.au wrote: Are discrete units only

Units, Quantities, etc

Hi Linda, I think your first example demonstrates why tablet is not a Unit -- I could equally say: 2 Mountains of Paracetamol 500 mg + Codeine Phosphate 15mg Mountains is therapeutically equivalent to 1 Mountain of Paracetamol 1g + Codeine Phosphate 30 mg Mountains Really what I am

Units, Quantities, etc

Well I'm still stuck trying to understand what you mean by 'computable'. And, no, a clinician cannot prescribe (just) 2 tablets -- I cannot compare that with 500 mg unless I know how much is in each tablet. Once you've told me how much is in each tablet, then (from a computability

openEHR artefact namespace identifiers

Note that in the SNOMED case, there are two identifiers in play: the concept identifier (which contains the namespace ID) and a module identifier. The idea is that ye namespace in the concept identifier will remain fixed and thus indicate the entity that originally introduced the concept,

constraint binding error

Indeed, in Australia, it would be ICD-10-AM but the version would correspond to the particular Edition you're using. Hence my example URI still included the string SNOMED so that one knows how to interpret the v=, s=, m= elements. Clearly every standard terminology is going to have it's own

IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available

Yes, the workflow stuff is just a tool feature. The RF2 spec is merely a file format and the spec has nothing to say about how such files may/should be generated. Regarding the clinical metadata elements you mention, these are not defined as part of RF2, but it should be possible to

IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available

I would add to Eric's point 3 that (based on the content of an IHTSDO webinar) the workflow/process implemented in the IHTSDO workbench involves an explicit manual approval step for every item in the generated static refset. I don't know how/if there is any special support for dealing with

Term bindings in archetypes and templates

Hi Mikael, You may be interested in our mapping tool, Snapper, which is designed to tackle this problem for mapping to (not from) SNOMED CT. It provides extensive support for mapping to post-coordinated expressions where single-concept maps are not possible and can be used to create