Grahame Grieve wrote: > Hi > > >> * there is always the possibility that it can't - because the class >> model commits to one idea of terminology coordination, while the syntax >> approach leaves it open >> > > do we know of any case? > I don't have a concrete one - so fair enough > >> * the information model shouldn't dictate to the terminology environment >> how to represent its artefacts. >> > > I have some sympathy for this. I have been tempted to toast the qualifier > and push everything into code as you guys have done, for the same reasons. > But I haven't found any case where the existing qualifier syntax is a > problem, and there is accepted requirements for originalText on the > qualifiers (at least, HL7 has accepted them). SO I didn't toast it, but > I did say in the openEHR mapping that you'd collapse the qualifiers into > the code phrase. I don't have a strong feeling for whether this would be > necessary or appropriate for 13606 > I don't have a problem; I just think we need a clear description of the equivalence so mappings are safe.
- thomas _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
