I think maybe actual modelling practice should be taken into account here. Since these guidelines haven't been available, several important percentages in published archetypes have been modelled as DV_PROPORTION: openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.inspired_oxygen.v1 https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.393 openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.pulse_oximetry.v1 https://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.3084
The way I understand the arguments here, there isn't a good one for changing these data types and going to v2 for these archetypes? Regards, Silje -----Original Message----- From: openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 3:36 PM To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % On 05/01/2019 12:56, Ian McNicoll wrote: > There is a very clear use-case for having it there - O2 levels > variably and equivalently described a FiO2 which is a unitary > proportion or percent. > > I think we need to keep it for that reason if no other. So in that case we need to upgrade the documentation for when to choose a DV_QUANTITY percent, and when a DV_PROPORTION %. - thomas _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
