RE: Specs about ACTIVITY.timing still unclear

2016 5:59 PM To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Specs about ACTIVITY.timing still unclear On 26/06/2016 22:23, pablo pazos wrote: Thanks for your message Ian, IMO avoiding the implementation of ACTIVITY.timing raises the question of why that was introduced in the model

Re: Specs about ACTIVITY.timing still unclear

On 26/06/2016 22:23, pablo pazos wrote: Thanks for your message Ian, IMO avoiding the implementation of ACTIVITY.timing raises the question of why that was introduced in the model and if we should keep it or not. it was included on the assumption that timing would be represented as a

RE: Specs about ACTIVITY.timing still unclear

ped timing on ACTIVITY.description. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez http://cabolabs.com From: i...@freshehr.com Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 08:41:13 +0100 Subject: Re: Specs about ACTIVITY.timing still unclear To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org CC: s...@lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, I think

Re: Specs about ACTIVITY.timing still unclear

Hi Pablo, I think it is fair to say that ACtivity.timing not used much (if at all). The various timing syntax options are far from standardised around the world. .timing is also difficult since real-world timings are often nested and need to be associated with specific parts of the archetype.