question on DV_Ordinal standard representation

Technical (archive)
1

If you have the following dv_ordinal

value existence matches {1..1} matches {
                                    1|[local::at0044],
                                    2|[local::at0045],
                                    3|[local::at0046]
              }
                            }

and you transform it to a standard representation you get something like this:

...

  DV_ORDINAL occurrences matches {0..1} matches { --
                                        symbol existence matches
{1..1} matches {
                                            DV_CODED_TEXT occurrences
matches {0..1} matches { --
                                                defining_code
existence matches {1..1} matches {
                                                    CODE_PHRASE
occurrences matches {0..1} matches { --
                                                        terminology_id
existence matches {1..1} matches {

TERMINOLOGY_ID occurrences matches {0..1} matches { --
                                                                value
existence matches {1..1} matches {"local"}
                                                            }
                                                        }
                                                        code_string
existence matches {1..1} matches {"at0050"}
                                                    }
                                                }
                                            }
                                        }
                                        value existence matches {1..1}
matches {1}

...

Taking into account that DV_CODED_TEXT 'value' attribute is
obligatory, what should be put on that when generating the standard
representation of an ordinal?
Specifications say: "For DV_CODED_TEXT, this is the rubric of the
complete term as provided by the terminology service", but as
terminology is local so I don't really know if it applies at all in
this case

Regards

2

There is a test archetype to show how to do this here. It looks like this in the AWB:

Its definition is:

SOME_TYPE[at0000] matches { – root item
standard_ordinal_attr matches {
DV_ORDINAL [at0004] matches {
value matches {|0|}
symbol matches {
DV_CODED_TEXT matches {
defining_code matches {[local::at0001]} – +
}
}
}
DV_ORDINAL [at0005] matches {
value matches {|1|}
symbol matches {
DV_CODED_TEXT matches {
defining_code matches {[local::at0002]} – ++
}
}
}
DV_ORDINAL [at0006] matches {
value matches {|2|}
symbol matches {
DV_CODED_TEXT matches {
defining_code matches {[local::at0003]} – +++
}
}
}
}
clinical_ordinal_attr_1 matches {
0|[local::at0001], – +
1|[local::at0002], – ++
2|[local::at0003]; – +++
0 – assumed value
}
}

You can treat the local terms like any other terms for the pruposes of generating the ‘value’ in data.

  • thomas
(attachments)

OceanInformaticsl.JPG

3

Yes, but what I mean is this

DV_ORDINAL [at0006] matches {
                value matches {|2|}
                symbol matches {
                    DV_CODED_TEXT matches {
                        value matches {???} --
value is obligatory and I don't know what to put there
                        defining_code matches {[local::at0003]} -- +++
                    }
                }

4

Hi Diego,

It is just the text ‘rubric’ of the code e.g. in the Glasgow Coma SCale ordinal

ELEMENT[at0007] occurrences matches {0..1} matches { – Best verbal response (V)
value matches {
1|[local::at0014], – No response
2|[local::at0015], – Incomprehensible sounds
3|[local::at0016], – Inappropriate speech
4|[local::at0017], – Confused conversation
5|[local::at0018] – Oriented
}
}

[“at0016”] = <
text = <“Inappropriate speech”>
description = <“Intelligible speech, but no conversational exchange.”>

You would put ‘Inappropriate speech’ in value.

Ian

5

Diego,

the value field is obligatory in the data, not in the archetype. You don’t have to constrain every RM element in an archetype, only what makes sense.

  • thomas
6

yeah, but you are fixing everything else, because this is an
alternative that would be chosen as a whole (if defining code is
local::at0003 and value is 2 then dv_coded_text.value should also be
fixed to whatever value is decided)

7

Hi Diego,

“(if defining code is
local::at0003 and value is 2 then dv_coded_text.value should also be
fixed to whatever value is decided)”

The dv_coded_text.value is fixed to the text rubric of at003, which might be “2”. “++” or “Mild”, depending on the archetype author The principle that the human text value of any code should be carried in the data is pretty universal.

Maybe I am not understanding the problem.

Ian

8

I guess that’s a reasonable statement. It depends on what part of your infrastructure is responsible for ensuring that the data respect the RM, but I get your point. In which case follow Ian’s advice…

  • thomas