On 02/09/2013 13:55, Bert Verhees wrote:
> I have received a few archetypes created with the LinkEHR editor.
>
> In there is a dateTime pattern like this:
> time existence matches {1..1} matches {-??-??T??:??:??}
it shouldn't be a legal pattern - at least year has to be specified. if
you real
On 09/02/2013 03:17 PM, Diego Bosc? wrote:
> I think we changed this somewhere in the past. Now we only allow date
> as -mm-dd or -??-?? and times as hh:mm:ss, hh:mm:?? or
> hh:mm:XX (as we haven't been able to find use cases for the all
> question marks dateTime).
>
> Having said that,
I think we changed this somewhere in the past. Now we only allow date as
-mm-dd or -??-?? and times as hh:mm:ss, hh:mm:?? or hh:mm:XX (as we
haven't been able to find use cases for the all question marks dateTime).
Having said that, LinkEHR parses -??-??T??:??:?? but it is interpreted
I have received a few archetypes created with the LinkEHR editor.
In there is a dateTime pattern like this:
time existence matches {1..1} matches {-??-??T??:??:??}
I wonder if it is a legal pattern according to the specifications. I
must say that it is an EN13606 archetype.
If it is legal,
4 matches
Mail list logo