| 87 | | I think there is. <<<To be continued>>> [[br]] |
| | 87 | It looks as if the i2b2 approach is a series of design compromises made along the way. The following looks as if this is the way it has been argued...[[br]] |
| | 88 | |
| | 89 | '''First decision''': |
| | 90 | * Any fact that can present an infinite range of values can only be supplied by a lab test (or something similar). |
| | 91 | * Any non-labtest fact should be presented as an enumeration of values within the ontology tree. |
| | 92 | |
| | 93 | '''Second decision''': [[br]] |
| | 94 | Labtests are very varied, some providing a reading from an infinite range (say 125.334), some providing a discrete result from amongst an enumerated list. So we better hive this off completely within a dialogue separate from the ontology tree, and provide another way of customizing the choice (c_metadataxml). [[br]] |
| | 95 | |
