date-time pattern

2013-09-02 Thread Thomas Beale
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

date-time pattern

2013-09-02 Thread Bert Verhees
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,

date-time pattern

2013-09-02 Thread Diego Boscá
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

date-time pattern

2013-09-02 Thread Bert Verhees
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,