Postulate: DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest possible units

-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141114/31f9962d/attachment.html

Postulate: DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest possible units

was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141114/05c3a926/attachment.html

Postulate: DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest possible units

have to go looking for them. - thomas -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141114/d4d5b67a/attachment-0001.html

Postulate: DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest possible units

On 14/11/2014 00:57, Ian McNicoll wrote: Hi Pablo, I would agree, this information is also carried in the Archetype Editor property files, although I suspect not as well maintained as the UCUM file. @Thomas - the profile suggestion is interesting but it feels to me that it adds level of

Postulate: DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest possible units

-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141114/5aa01478/attachment-0001.html

Postulate: DV_QUANTITY should be modelled with fewest possible units

Hi Diego, I am sure that could be done but it would mean replicating these kind of statements in every archetype that had multiple units. This really feels like something that should be handled computationally at RM level- it is universal and a property of the units not of the archetype. Ian Dr

ORIGINAL_VERSION.attestations is needed in the IM?

-- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141114/cc2496fe/attachment.html