# normal\_status terminology missing description

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/normal-status-terminology-missing-description/11623>\
**Category:** Specifications\
**Created:** [1 December 2025 10:35 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/normal-status-terminology-missing-description/11623 "2025-12-01T10:35:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SevKohler](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sevkohler/32/3504_2.png) [@SevKohler](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/SevKohler)\
**Post date:** [1 December 2025 10:35 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/normal-status-terminology-missing-description/11623/1 "2025-12-01T10:35:04Z")

</div>

Hey,

the HL7 specification linked contains only H and HH.  
Our spec does not explain what these values mean.  
If yes where are these values meaning documented ?

> **[Support Terminology specification](https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/TERM/latest/SupportTerminology.html#_normal_statuses)**
>
> openEHR Support Terminology specification

> <https://github.com/openEHR/archie/blob/b11af702fce0c4b4b1706398e0c65e8fd38f298d/openehr-terminology/src/main/resources/openEHR_RM/en/openehr_terminology.xml#L18>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/siljelb/32/12_2.png) [@siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb)\
**Post date:** [1 December 2025 11:04 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/normal-status-terminology-missing-description/11623/2 "2025-12-01T11:04:00Z")

</div>

[Data Types Information Model](https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/data_types.html#_dv_ordered_class)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SevKohler](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sevkohler/32/3504_2.png) [@SevKohler](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/SevKohler)\
**Post date:** [1 December 2025 11:05 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/normal-status-terminology-missing-description/11623/3 "2025-12-01T11:05:55Z")

</div>

Does not explain the meaning behind it just states the values again:

> Coded by ordinals in series HHH, HH, H, (nothing), L, LL, LLL

The hl7 spec linked in one of my links explains L LL and H HH but not LLL and HHH

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/siljelb/32/12_2.png) [@siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb)\
**Post date:** [1 December 2025 11:18 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/normal-status-terminology-missing-description/11623/4 "2025-12-01T11:18:46Z")

</div>

Ah, right. Here’s a little more: [Data Types Information Model](https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/data_types.html#_normal_and_reference_ranges)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SevKohler](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sevkohler/32/3504_2.png) [@SevKohler](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/SevKohler)\
**Post date:** [1 December 2025 11:20 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/normal-status-terminology-missing-description/11623/5 "2025-12-01T11:20:51Z")

</div>

Ah thank you, i will raise a ticket, we will have to change and make better visible.  
Also L LL LLL is missing, even thou you can abstract that.  
Not very optimal for a specification.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sebastian.garde/32/3070_2.png) [@sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde)\
**Post date:** [1 December 2025 13:17 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/normal-status-terminology-missing-description/11623/6 "2025-12-01T13:17:13Z")

</div>

Agree +

> Coded by ordinals in series HHH, HH, H, (nothing), L, LL, LLL;

However, the terminology itself as well as a post\_status and an invariant on DV\_ORDERED have a “normal” normal status as “N” and not as (nothing), e.g.

_Post\_status_: `normal_status /= Void implies normal_status.code_string.is_equal (“N”)`

_Normal\_range\_and\_status\_consistency_: `(normal_range /= Void and normal_status /= Void) implies (normal_status.code_string.is_equal (“N”) xor not normal_range.has (self))`

Unless there is an explanation I am missing, this looks odd to me.