# existence and assumed value

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/existence-and-assumed-value/15009>\
**Category:** Technical (archive)\
**Created:** [19 September 2010 14:45 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/existence-and-assumed-value/15009 "2010-09-19T14:45:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<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:** [19 September 2010 14:45 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/existence-and-assumed-value/15009/1 "2010-09-19T14:45:08Z")

</div>

Hi all,

I noticed that the JAVA ADL-parser marks a CObject existence as required  
if it is not specified in ADL  
If there is also an assumed value specified, then this is, in my opinion  
conflicting, because the function of the assumed value is to use it when  
there an attribute is not used  
(page 21 AOM.pdf).

Or am I wrong?

Thanks for your attention

Bert

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e19b73/32.png) [@Heath\_Frankel3](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Heath_Frankel3)\
**Post date:** [20 September 2010 08:10 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/existence-and-assumed-value/15009/2 "2010-09-20T08:10:21Z")

</div>

Hi Bert,  
Assumed value is different to default value (see the AOM spec for definition  
of assumed value, default value is further defined in the new 1.5 AOM spec).  
If an element has a assumed value defined and its value is not present, the  
assumed value should not be used in the data, it remains not present. The  
meaning of not present is the assumed value from a clinical perspective, but  
does not get injected into the data. Compare with a default value which  
does get injected into the data when the value is not originally present.

My understanding is that assumed values are most usually used in state, not  
data (e.g. assumed value of blood pressure position is sitting).

Heath

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/ian.mcnicoll/32/4430_2.png) [@ian.mcnicoll](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/ian.mcnicoll)\
**Post date:** [20 September 2010 09:14 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/existence-and-assumed-value/15009/3 "2010-09-20T09:14:43Z")

</div>

Just to concur with Heath. These are intended to describe the  
clinical assumption that it would be safe to make, usually about  
patient state, if the data was NOT specifically recorded. i.e if  
patient position was not recorded in a blood pressure reading, it  
would be safe to assume the patient was sitting, or if the oxygen  
level was not recorded in the ambient oxygen archetype, it would be  
safe to assume that the patient was breathing air.

In practice, we have very few examples in the CKM archetypes to date,  
where it is safe to make such clinical assumptions.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll  
office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657  
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859  
skype ianmcnicoll  
ian.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics.com  
ian@mcmi.co.uk

Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics  
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, University College London  
openEHR Archetype Editorial Group  
Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland

---

<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:** [20 September 2010 10:17 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/existence-and-assumed-value/15009/4 "2010-09-20T10:17:46Z")

</div>

Thanks Heath for your explanation, that is indeed something completely  
different as I was thinking.

So, it is something we do not need to worry about when processing  
archetyped data on the backend,

You just made may day, saves me some time

Bert

Op 20-09-10 10:10, Heath Frankel schreef:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Leonardo\_Moretti](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@Leonardo\_Moretti](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Leonardo_Moretti)\
**Post date:** [20 September 2010 13:20 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/existence-and-assumed-value/15009/5 "2010-09-20T13:20:07Z")

</div>

Hi Bert,

maybe also this links could be helpful..  
[http://old.nabble.com/"state"-and--"protocol"-structures-are-mandatory%2C-when-defined--td29174701.html](http://old.nabble.com/%22state%22-and--%22protocol%22-structures-are-mandatory%2C-when-defined--td29174701.html)  
and  
[http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/dev/Existence+of+Attributes+(AOM,+ADL+and+XML)](http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/dev/Existence+of+Attributes+%28AOM,+ADL+and+XML%29)

Leo

BertV wrote:

---

<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:** [21 September 2010 08:24 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/existence-and-assumed-value/15009/6 "2010-09-21T08:24:22Z")

</div>

Thanks Ian,

My question was more for technical point of view.

I raise an exception is a required entry (existence) is not in the data  
set. I was wondering if this was conflicting with the assumed value (if  
available)  
I understand from Heath that this is not conflicting because assumed  
values are not injected in the data-sets.

I think, there purpose can be to use in a GUI (f.e. generated on base of  
an archetype, to give an value to a GUI-control, which can be changed by  
the GUI-user). Another purpose, I cannot think of.

Bert

Op 20-09-10 11:14, Ian McNicoll schreef: