# ADL / OpenEHR IM mismatch
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adl-openehr-im-mismatch/15940
**Category:** Technical (archive)
**Created:** [4 April 2007 10:19 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adl-openehr-im-mismatch/15940 "2007-04-04T10:19:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [4 April 2007 10:19 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adl-openehr-im-mismatch/15940/1 "2007-04-04T10:19:29Z")
Hello everybody,
We are working on the Standard representation of Archetype Domain Types. When trying to convert a CDvQuantity object we found a possible mismatch between the ADL representation of a CDvQuantity and the EHR IM DvQuantity. According to the OpenEHR Archetype Profile document, an inline representation of the CDvQuantity is
age matches {
C\_DV\_QUANTITY \<
property = \<[openehr::128]\> – time
list = \<
[“1”] = \<
units = \<“yr”\>
magnitude = \<|0.0..200.0|\>
precision = \<|2|\>
>
}
and so is supported by the ADL parsers (the ACode Java parser at least). That instance would correspond to the standard representation
age matches {
DV\_QUANTITY matches {
property matches {“time”}
units matches {“yr”}
magnitude matches {|0.0..200.0|}
}
The problem is that the “property” attribute does not exist in DV\_Quantity class. According to the CR-000095 it was removed from Quantity package. Then, What is the purpose of maintaining the “property” element in the ADL inline representation? Could it be converted, for instance, into a term binding? That is,
age matches {
DV\_QUANTITY[at1000] matches {
units matches {“yr”}
magnitude matches {|0.0..200.0|}
}
…
term\_binding = \<
[“openehr”] = \<
items =\<
[“at1000”] = \<[openehr::128]\>
---
### Author:  [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [5 April 2007 08:05 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adl-openehr-im-mismatch/15940/2 "2007-04-05T08:05:24Z")
Hi David,
I have raised the same question before. My understanding is that the “property” attribute of C\_DV\_QUANTITY serves as an indication to Archetype Editor so it can provide sensible options of units and mangnitude.
Regards,
Rong
---
### Author:  [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)
#### Post date: [5 April 2007 11:11 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adl-openehr-im-mismatch/15940/3 "2007-04-05T11:11:41Z")
David Moner wrote:
> The problem is that the "property" attribute does not exist in
> DV\_Quantity class. According to the CR-000095 it was removed from
> Quantity package. Then, What is the purpose of maintaining the
> "property" element in the ADL inline representation?
Hi David,
In general, C\_DOMAIN\_TYPE descendants can include any additional
constraints they need to - this is the point of these classes. The
property attribute in C\_DV\_QUANTITY allows the archetype to just
constrain the property alone but not the precise unit, which is
commonly done.
Not sure I understand the sense of what is proposed below - the 'at'
codes provide the meaning of nodes, but I don't see what it is doing here...
- thomas