On 26/09/2011 18:22, Ian McNicoll wrote: > I still cannot find the reference to the VCOV rule in the > specifications - can someone point this out? > > I agree that we seem to be mixing up 2 somewhat different ideas here. > One is the 'true' ordinal, where there is a set of ordered terms to > each of which some sort of ordered but otherwise arbitrary integer > value is assigned. If all we are doing is asserting the correct order > of the terms then it is questionable whether anything other than the > index position in the list is necessary e.g 0..n. However there are > many examples of ordered lists in clinical use which have at least > some sort of score attached to each list member. As Daniel has pointed > out, it is somewhat dubious if these really qualify as ordinals and I > agree with Tom's idea that these are really term->value mappings. > > I would vote for taking the simple option of removing the 'uniqueness' > requirement. I doubt very much if this would cause any downstream > problems with decision support, in that if unique constraints are > required, these will be fully defined by the archetyping itself e.g a > GCS or Apgar score. >
can someone please put an issue on the SPECPR tracker <http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPECPR>? It should quote this and Daniel's posts. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110926/aa1f5db6/attachment.html>
