# DV\_QUANTITY\_RATIO - remove from specification

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593>\
**Category:** Technical (archive)\
**Created:** [30 November 2006 17:03 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593 "2006-11-30T17:03:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 14\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sam](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Sam](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Sam)\
**Post date:** [30 November 2006 17:03 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/1 "2006-11-30T17:03:01Z")

</div>

Dear All

We have been working on the data types as we have known that there is a need to deal with fractions, ratios and percentages when the idea is of proportion - ie there is no units. Since the DV\_QUANTITY\_RATIO points to anything Quantified (ie count, date\_time, duration) there are many non-sensible possibilities and although it has been around since the GEHR days, we have not used it for anything other than the idea of the new DV\_PROPORTION type (which will be available in 1.0.1).

I have filed a change request which explains how the perceived requirements for this type have largely been dealt with in archetypes:

[http://coruscant.chime.ucl.ac.uk:8200/openEHR\_Collector/projects/specifications/CR/227/base\_view?portal\_status\_message=Your%20changes%20have%20been%20saved.&fieldset=issuedata](http://coruscant.chime.ucl.ac.uk:8200/openEHR_Collector/projects/specifications/CR/227/base_view?portal_status_message=Your%20changes%20have%20been%20saved.&fieldset=issuedata)

Tom will let you know about the DV\_PROPORTION class.  
[http://coruscant.chime.ucl.ac.uk:8200/openEHR\_Collector/projects/specifications/CR/144/base\_view?portal\_status\_message=Your%20changes%20have%20been%20saved.&fieldset=issuedata](http://coruscant.chime.ucl.ac.uk:8200/openEHR_Collector/projects/specifications/CR/144/base_view?portal_status_message=Your%20changes%20have%20been%20saved.&fieldset=issuedata)

Interested in comments and queries…

Cheers, Sam

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mattias\_Forss1](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Mattias\_Forss1](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Mattias_Forss1)\
**Post date:** [7 December 2006 10:50 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/2 "2006-12-07T10:50:47Z")

</div>

2006/11/30, Sam Heard \<[sam.heard@oceaninformatics.biz](mailto:sam.heard@oceaninformatics.biz)\>:

> Dear All
> 
> We have been working on the data types as we have known that there is a need to deal with fractions, ratios and percentages when the idea is of proportion - ie there is no units. Since the DV\_QUANTITY\_RATIO points to anything Quantified (ie count, date\_time, duration) there are many non-sensible possibilities and although it has been around since the GEHR days, we have not used it for anything other than the idea of the new DV\_PROPORTION type (which will be available in 1.0.1).

Hi Sam,

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?

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?

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)) you will see that the elements named ‘Packed cell volume (PCV)’ and ‘Plateletcrit’ are quantity data types with empty units, but maybe they could be changed to proportion data types instead? If not, then the specification of C\_QUANTITY\_ITEM must be changed.

Another issue not at all related to the above:  
The Ocean editor writes other\_contributors = \<\> in the description part when there are no other contributors, but since the attribute is not mandatory, garbage like this should be removed from the archetypes. If the attribute exists, then it should contain something as well. I would like this to be fixed, because it makes the Java ADL parser fail…

Regards,

Mattias

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/thomas.beale/32/35_2.png) [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)\
**Post date:** [7 December 2006 17:35 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/3 "2006-12-07T17:35:46Z")

</div>

Mattias Forss wrote:

> Another issue not at all related to the above:  
> The Ocean editor writes other\_contributors = \<\> in the description  
> part when there are no other contributors, but since the attribute is  
> not mandatory, garbage like this should be removed from the  
> archetypes. If the attribute exists, then it should contain something  
> as well. I would like this to be fixed, because it makes the Java ADL  
> parser fail...

it shouldn't, since it is perfectly legal, but I agree it should be  
removed from archetypes, since it gives no information...I'll answer the  
other notes later (mostly I agree with you). We are working to redo all  
the archetypes - most of the bugs reported have been sorted in the  
Archetype Editor. However, this last few weeks there has been a huge  
upsurge in interest in openEHR, so we are a bit behind in the technical  
work.

- thomas

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/thomas.beale/32/35_2.png) [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)\
**Post date:** [8 December 2006 12:24 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/4 "2006-12-08T12:24:11Z")

</div>

Mattias Forss wrote:

> 2006/11/30, Sam Heard \<[sam.heard@oceaninformatics.biz](mailto:sam.heard@oceaninformatics.biz)\>:
> 
> > Dear All
> > 
> > We have been working on the data types as we have known that there is a need to deal with fractions, ratios and percentages when the idea is of proportion - ie there is no units. Since the DV\_QUANTITY\_RATIO points to anything Quantified (ie count, date\_time, duration) there are many non-sensible possibilities and although it has been around since the GEHR days, we have not used it for anything other than the idea of the new DV\_PROPORTION type (which will be available in 1.0.1).
> 
> Hi Sam,
> 
> 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.

> 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.

> 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)) you will see that the elements named ‘Packed cell volume (PCV)’ and ‘Plateletcrit’ are quantity data types with empty units, but maybe they could be changed to proportion data types instead? If not, then the specification of C\_QUANTITY\_ITEM must be changed.

Sam - I imagine this is right - can you check this?

Although we have not yet uploaded cleaner archetypes with all the changes everyone wants, we have nearly done all the changes to the tools, and the next generation of archetypes on the openEHR website should address everything. After that we should be able to proceed faster, since I think we will have removed all the anomalies in tools with respect to the specification, and also fixed a few anomalies in the specfication.

- thomas

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mattias\_Forss1](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Mattias\_Forss1](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Mattias_Forss1)\
**Post date:** [8 December 2006 12:50 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/5 "2006-12-08T12:50:21Z")

</div>

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)) you will see that the elements named ‘Packed cell volume (PCV)’ and ‘Plateletcrit’ are quantity data types with empty units, but maybe they could be changed to proportion data types instead? If not, then the specification of C\_QUANTITY\_ITEM must be changed.
> 
> Sam - I imagine this is right - can you check this?
> 
> Although we have not yet uploaded cleaner archetypes with all the changes everyone wants, we have nearly done all the changes to the tools, and the next generation of archetypes on the openEHR website should address everything. After that we should be able to proceed faster, since I think we will have removed all the anomalies in tools with respect to the specification, and also fixed a few anomalies in the specfication.

It would be great if the archetypes could be updated soon. Could I get a listing of the changes so I can update the Java archetype editor accordingly?

Regards,

Mattias

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sam](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Sam](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Sam)\
**Post date:** [10 December 2006 12:06 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/6 "2006-12-10T12:06:06Z")

</div>

Correct, have been waiting for the proportion type…Cheers, Sam

Thomas Beale wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sam](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Sam](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Sam)\
**Post date:** [10 December 2006 12:07 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/7 "2006-12-10T12:07:01Z")

</div>

Yes, and replaced with Proportion which is a more general concept. Sam

Mattias Forss wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/thomas.beale/32/35_2.png) [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)\
**Post date:** [10 December 2006 14:45 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/8 "2006-12-10T14:45:37Z")

</div>

Sam Heard wrote:

> Yes, and replaced with Proportion which is a more general concept. Sam

well, to be correct, we should wait for the ARB judgement on this.

- thomas

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/thomas.beale/32/35_2.png) [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)\
**Post date:** [10 December 2006 15:16 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/9 "2006-12-10T15:16:02Z")

</div>

Mattias Forss wrote:

> It would be great if the archetypes could be updated soon. Could I get  
> a listing of the changes so I can update the Java archetype editor  
> accordingly?

Thanks mattias,  
I think we should upload a set that have many/most of the improvements  
your work has introduced, I hope in a week or less - the changes are  
being done - just a lot of checking to do. But I think most of the pain  
is over now...but you can feel sure that the annoyance value on your  
part is not for nothing - we greatly appreciate your contributions and  
patience.

- thomas

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Churches](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Tim\_Churches](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Tim_Churches)\
**Post date:** [10 December 2006 20:54 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/10 "2006-12-10T20:54:55Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sam](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Sam](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Sam)\
**Post date:** [10 December 2006 23:51 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/11 "2006-12-10T23:51:31Z")

</div>

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:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dr\_LONJON\_Roger](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/e47c2d/32.png) [@Dr\_LONJON\_Roger](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Dr_LONJON_Roger)\
**Post date:** [11 December 2006 11:03 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/12 "2006-12-11T11:03:41Z")

</div>

Hello,

&nbsp;&nbsp;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:
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;Sam Heard wrote:
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mattias Forss wrote:
> 
> 2006/12/8, Thomas Beale \<Thomas.Beale@oceaninformatics.biz  
> \<mailto:Thomas.Beale@oceaninformatics.biz\>\>:
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mattias Forss wrote:
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Does this mean that the ratio constraint could as of now be  
> removed from  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the archetype editors? Will the DV\_RATIO class be removed from the  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;specifications as well? If not, should the editors change the current  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ratio constraint to be of a DV\_RATIO instead of a DV\_QUANTITY\_RATIO?
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;this is the expected approach. I know it is annoying for us to make  
> this  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;software change, but we cannot escape the fact that there were some  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;categories of clinical data that were not properly addressed by the  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;current data types.
> 
> Not sure what your answer is here, can the ratio constraint be removed from  
> the editors or not?
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think that the new DV\_PROPORTION class could be used instead of  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DV\_QUANTITY when there are no units, e.g. only the property 'Qualified  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;real' and the empty string as a unit or a missing unit attribute in the  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;item list of C\_QUANTITY and only a magnitude attribute. The current ADL  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;parser doesn't expect empty or null units which is correct according to  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the specification of C\_QUANTITY\_ITEM in the archetype profile package.  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hence, there should always be a unit specified for each item in the item  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;list of C\_QUANTITY in archetypes and it cannot be empty because  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;quantified data with no units could be represented with the DV\_PROPORTION  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;data type, right?
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DV\_COUNT will take care of countable things - also with no units.  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Otherwise, anything else with no units I think will end up being a  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DV\_PROPORTION - is we think of "proportion" as the idea of "relative  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;amount", "how much of a total", then it is quite a wide concept that is  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;likely to cover many situations. Sam and I believe your assumption is  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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)

> 

\<[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&gt;\](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&gt;%5C))

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [14 December 2006 21:21 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/13 "2006-12-14T21:21:44Z")

</div>

> Mattias Forss wrote:
> 
> > It would be great if the archetypes could be updated soon. Could I get  
> > a listing of the changes so I can update the Java archetype editor  
> > accordingly?  
> > Thanks mattias,  
> > I think we should upload a set that have many/most of the improvements  
> > your work has introduced, I hope in a week or less - the changes are  
> > being done - just a lot of checking to do. But I think most of the pain  
> > is over now…but you can feel sure that the annoyance value on your  
> > part is not for nothing - we greatly appreciate your contributions and  
> > patience.

I agree! 🙂

Can I suggest that we put a minimum set of Archetypes for compatibility/interoperability test? Don’t need to be clinical meaningful but should include all the possible features from the AOM and RM.

/Rong

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/thomas.beale/32/35_2.png) [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)\
**Post date:** [15 December 2006 11:33 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/dv-quantity-ratio-remove-from-specification/14593/14 "2006-12-15T11:33:06Z")

</div>

Rong Chen wrote:

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mattias Forss wrote:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\>  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\> It would be great if the archetypes could be updated soon. Could  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I get  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\> a listing of the changes so I can update the Java archetype editor  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\> accordingly?  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thanks mattias,  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think we should upload a set that have many/most of the improvements  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;your work has introduced, I hope in a week or less - the changes are  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;being done - just a lot of checking to do. But I think most of the  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;pain  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;is over now...but you can feel sure that the annoyance value on your  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;part is not for nothing - we greatly appreciate your contributions and  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;patience.
> 
> I agree! 🙂
> 
> Can I suggest that we put a minimum set of Archetypes for  
> compatibility/interoperability test? Don't need to be clinical  
> meaningful but should include all the possible features from the AOM  
> and RM.

yes, all it requires is working on the archetypes found in the "test"  
directory of the knowledge repository.

- thomas