ADL parser
minreddy minreddy wrote: Hi 'GUI Archetype Editor uses Eiffel reference ADL parser' as stated in this page http://svn.openehr.org/knowledge_tools_java/TRUNK/project_page.htm Is there any ADL parser written in Java? Is anybody working on that? there is; Rong Chen has commented on that. But you might want to make the Eiffel parser and workbench compile on Linux, if interested. I have made it build for MacOSX and it works, but there are a few visual gremlins and install issues that need to be solved and I don't have the time. The same will happen on Linux - but no source will need to be changed. And plus Eiffel is a lot of fun to work with. - thomas beale
Normal and other ranges
Hi Rodrigo, Rodrigo Filgueira wrote: I see DV_ORDERED can optionally have specified normal and other ranges. While the other ranges are said to be dependant on the measuring context. normal range it seems to me, coud be defined as allways the same? not sure what you mean here. I'm thinking about laboratory resullts. Anyway, is there a way to define this ranges in Archetypes? technically there is nothing stopping it, but it would almost always be the wrong thing to do, since the normal range of a Quantity is there to carry the actual normal range for the particular analyte in question, for the lab, and for the patient. So if it is serum sodium, the range will still depend on all of these things, and cannot be archetyped. The intention is not to use archetypes to standardise these values, but to provide a place for labs to put the specific normal range values that applied for each analyte, for the particular patient, and remembering that each lab has slightly different instrument settings. Probably what you are looking for is the normal range reference data - like what you see in a pathology book, or what any physician knows for all of the main vital signs and other measurable things. We consider this to be reference information, like terminology, but for quantified values. While much of it is published in paper form, as far as I know there is no recognised way to represent quantitative range data in a standard computable form (i.e. in the way that you can get Snomed or ICD10 in a computable format). This is needed. But archetypes are not the place to standardise this - archetypes are about defining content structures, not domain reference knowledge. - thomas beale Or should a decission support module be responsible for this? thank you ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- ___ CTO Ocean Informatics (http://www.OceanInformatics.biz) Research Fellow, University College London (http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk) Chair Architectural Review Board, openEHR (http://www.openEHR.org)
Normal and other ranges
Hi, My personal thoughts. In general the normal range is dependent on the type of lab method and specific lab and valid in a particular context (male, female, old, young, time, etc) So the information can be provided by the lab only. They know (should know) what all the normal ranges in all relevant contexts are. Of course for the purpose of providing lab results archetypes will be produced. In these lab-reporting archetypes there must be a spot where this type of information can be provided. IT techies think many times that absolute figures are very important. In general trends provide more useful information than single absolute figures Gerard -- private -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 653 108732 -- work -- Gerard Freriks, arts TNO ICT Brassersplein 2 Delft, the Netherlands T: +31 15 2857105 M: +31 653 108732 Gerard.Freriks at TNO.nl On 31-aug-2006, at 19:20, Thomas Beale wrote: technically there is nothing stopping it, but it would almost always be the wrong thing to do, since the normal range of a Quantity is there to carry the actual normal range for the particular analyte in question, for the lab, and for the patient. So if it is serum sodium, the range will still depend on all of these things, and cannot be archetyped. The intention is not to use archetypes to standardise these values, but to provide a place for labs to put the specific normal range values that applied for each analyte, for the particular patient, and remembering that each lab has slightly different instrument settings. Probably what you are looking for is the normal range reference data - like what you see in a pathology book, or what any physician knows for all of the main vital signs and other measurable things. We consider this to be reference information, like terminology, but for quantified values. While much of it is published in paper form, as far as I know there is no recognised way to represent quantitative range data in a standard computable form (i.e. in the way that you can get Snomed or ICD10 in a computable format). This is needed. But archetypes are not the place to standardise this - archetypes are about defining content structures, not domain reference knowledge. - thomas beale -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060831/7cba880b/attachment.html
