Hello,
The semantic debate, if I understood door well on the way to represent an
exploitable data by a computer. The topic is the numeration formulates red
chalk.
it exists an unit well to know the number of globules counted on the one hand by
reference to an unit of volume and a percentage in relation to the other cells
in the same unit of volume.
Excuse me if my remark is to quoted of the question, because my comprehension of
the technical English is basic.
cordially
Dr R LONJON France
Selon Sam Heard <sam.heard@oceaninformatics.biz>:
Dear Tim
The reality is that PCV and Red Cell Distribution width are proportions
and as such have no units. So the new data type meets the needs you
have identified. One aspect is to constrain the magnitude (which is a
function) and might usefully be set.
Cheers, Sam
Tim Churches wrote:
Sam Heard wrote:
Yes, and replaced with Proportion which is a more general concept. Sam
Surely a proportion has to be constrained to lie between 0.0 and 1.0?
How can that be used to express quantities without units which are
greater than one (without the added complication of a multiplier). A
ratio has no such constraints.
Or have I misunderstood what is intended?
Tim C
Mattias Forss wrote:
2006/12/8, Thomas Beale <Thomas.Beale@oceaninformatics.biz
<mailto:Thomas.Beale@oceaninformatics.biz>>:
Mattias Forss wrote:
Does this mean that the ratio constraint could as of now be
removed from
the archetype editors? Will the DV_RATIO class be removed from the
specifications as well? If not, should the editors change the current
ratio constraint to be of a DV_RATIO instead of a DV_QUANTITY_RATIO?
this is the expected approach. I know it is annoying for us to make
this
software change, but we cannot escape the fact that there were some
categories of clinical data that were not properly addressed by the
current data types.
Not sure what your answer is here, can the ratio constraint be removed from
the editors or not?
I think that the new DV_PROPORTION class could be used instead of
DV_QUANTITY when there are no units, e.g. only the property 'Qualified
real' and the empty string as a unit or a missing unit attribute in the
item list of C_QUANTITY and only a magnitude attribute. The current ADL
parser doesn't expect empty or null units which is correct according to
the specification of C_QUANTITY_ITEM in the archetype profile package.
Hence, there should always be a unit specified for each item in the item
list of C_QUANTITY in archetypes and it cannot be empty because
quantified data with no units could be represented with the DV_PROPORTION
data type, right?
DV_COUNT will take care of countable things - also with no units.
Otherwise, anything else with no units I think will end up being a
DV_PROPORTION - is we think of "proportion" as the idea of "relative
amount", "how much of a total", then it is quite a wide concept that is
likely to cover many situations. Sam and I believe your assumption is
pretty safe at the moment.
Understood, the proportion data type makes a lot more sense than the
DV_QUANTITY_RATIO which allowed a lot of different quantifiable data types.
There is no need to make things more complicated than they are and the
simplification with DV_PROPORTION is great.
If you have a look at the blood film archetype (here:
http://my.openehr.org/wsvn/knowledge/archetypes/dev/adl/openehr/ehr/entry/observation/openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.blood_film.v1.adl?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
<http://my.openehr.org/wsvn/knowledge/archetypes/dev/adl/openehr/ehr/entry/observation/openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.blood_film.v1.adl?op=file&rev=0&sc=0>\)
