Opened 7 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

Last modified 6 years ago

#171 closed question (answered)

Question about submitting new units of Measure

Reported by: John Snyder Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: Keywords:



I have compiled units of measure that are supposedly in UCUM format from teh following sources:

  • LOINC (The acutual Version 2.50 content found in the example_UCUM_UNIT field)

-- Regenstrief (Published document -- PHINVADS -- HL7 FHIR -- HL7 DE -- Quest Diagnostics Laboratories -- FDA -- Mayo Clinic -- Geisinger Health Systems (My Organization)

While reviewing and cleaning the units of measure, I have found the following issues:

  1. Actual units of measure are being referenced as annotations. (Based on the way the rules for parsing are written, /{HPF} will not be flagged as invalid because it should be /[HPF])
  1. When a valid unit of measure for an arbitrary unit doesn't exist in UCUM, it is being handled as an annotation comment as opposed to being add as a valid unit to UCUM Core. (e.g. See Tickets 168 - 170)
  1. A ticket was requested for a bulk ucum validator to be created ~ 2 years ago, but I am unable to find anyone that has such a tool. So, while I have the compiled list and have done my best to translate these based on the UCUM documentation into valid units of measure, I really don't have a way to validate them.

What is the best and most expendient way to have this list of units reviewed and those that should be added to UCUM added as well as have the proposed formating validated?

Thanks John

P.S. This list was created to be used to create a pick-list (i.e. combo-box) for managing the units of measure selected by our Lab team inside of a web application to manage mapping of standardized terminologies.

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by Gunther Schadow

These are implementation support issues. No standard will necessarily publish tools to he world to do this. There have at some point in the past been publicly available open source code for this, but not released as an easy to use validation tool.

Pragmatic Data LLC or any other entity friendly to UCUM may consider publishing such a tool.

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by Christof Gessner

I also reviewed the units in the list published by LOINC at some point in time. I sent my comments to the editors of that list.

I used a validation algorithm I developed myself, I consider reviewing and sharing the code - but this is outside of the scope of the UCUM code system. Some validation tools are listed on this website.

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by Christof Gessner

Resolution: answered
Status: newclosed

Answering the questions one by one:

  1. See the spec at §45 "While [HPF] we define LPF and HPF as dimensionless quantities with magnitudes that reflect the ratio of the view areas, i.e. 100:1. This allows at least to convert between numbers per LPF and per HPF and vice versa." So in this particular case {HPF} is actually equivalent to [HPF]. However, as it is in our list of units, we recommend to use [HPF] and gain the benefit of convertibility to [LPF].
  1. The content between curly brackets {} shall be treated as equivalent to the unit "1". New units may be suggested using the ticket system (with a good explanation).
  1. A few tools are listed at However, note that UCUM does not take any responibility for those tools, they are regarded as independent third party projects.

I hope this answered your questions, thank you for the comments.

comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by Christof Gessner

Priority: criticalminor
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.