This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "Datatypes R2 Issue 29"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Data Types Issue 29: PPD<T> issues ==
 
== Data Types Issue 29: PPD<T> issues ==
 
:Tons of issues here. I have had extensive exchange with Paul Schluter about shortcomings. I think we need to do 2 things: (1) correct the parameter specifications, (2) consider adding (or including) a confidence interval notation. This also relates with the disambiguation of IVL and URG. [[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] 21:58, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 
  
 
== Introduction ==
 
== Introduction ==
Line 11: Line 9:
 
The goal is to make PPD/confidence interval and IVL compatible types with the same XML rendition. That way we can gently stir people to using PPD for ranges with “pick one” semantics and away from IVL which has “all of those” semantics
 
The goal is to make PPD/confidence interval and IVL compatible types with the same XML rendition. That way we can gently stir people to using PPD for ranges with “pick one” semantics and away from IVL which has “all of those” semantics
  
 +
Auxilliary: Is it possible, then, to construct a PPD<RTO>?
 +
 +
:Tons of issues here. I have had extensive exchange with Paul Schluter about shortcomings. I think we need to do 2 things: (1) correct the parameter specifications, (2) consider adding (or including) a confidence interval notation. This also relates with the disambiguation of IVL and URG. [[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] 21:58, 11 January 2007 (CST)
  
Auxilliary: Is it possible, then, to construct a PPD<RTO>?
 
  
 
? backward compatible.
 
? backward compatible.

Revision as of 18:03, 3 May 2007

Data Types Issue 29: PPD<T> issues

Introduction

PPD<T>: Revamp PPD to address two interests in the PPD data type extension. PPD<T>: we have two interests in the PPD data type extension. One group of people (Paul Schluter, GE, from LABPOCT SIG and IEEE/MIB group) wants more distribution types and more parameters. Another group, represented by many, many casual users, need a simple confidence-interval like form. Those are people who now prefer to use IVL<T> rather than PPD because PPD seems alien to them.

Proposal is to revamp PPD (which had been left on status   informative for the ballot) and accomplish both of these above  goals. Review and extend the distributions and parameterization model, and at the same time add a confidence interval form and potentially a percentile form.

The goal is to make PPD/confidence interval and IVL compatible types with the same XML rendition. That way we can gently stir people to using PPD for ranges with “pick one” semantics and away from IVL which has “all of those” semantics

Auxilliary: Is it possible, then, to construct a PPD<RTO>?

Tons of issues here. I have had extensive exchange with Paul Schluter about shortcomings. I think we need to do 2 things: (1) correct the parameter specifications, (2) consider adding (or including) a confidence interval notation. This also relates with the disambiguation of IVL and URG. Gschadow 21:58, 11 January 2007 (CST)


? backward compatible.

Discussion

Links

Back to Data Types R2 issues