On 21/03/2012 09:28, Grahame Grieve wrote: > But the question around can you trust the data is, can you recognize > properly when the units are ucum or not? For some reason I haven't put > my finger on, you are linking the knowing of this with the boundary of > the type. It's not clear to me why you're making that link. > > Grahame
well... good question. So in other words: if there is a units field specifically for 'formal' units, is it UCUM only or not? I would have said it should be except for annoying problems like the one Heath mentioned - UCUM uses '*' for exponent instead of '^' which almost everyone else uses.... We could use the same approach as an openEHR DV_PARSABLE, where the name of the syntax is stored as well, but this is IMO inviting a different kind of pain... My answer would be: let's get UCUM doing everything we need (for the formal units field I mean, not the informal one); if we can't, we need a new UCUM. - thomas
