Possible improvement to the wording in the standard - DICOM

This is a discussion on Possible improvement to the wording in the standard - DICOM ; It states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 30 "Data Elements with a VR of SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall always have a Value Multiplicity of one." But then it states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 24 in the entry for ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Possible improvement to the wording in the standard

  1. Possible improvement to the wording in the standard

    It states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 30
    "Data Elements with a VR of SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall always have a
    Value Multiplicity of one."

    But then it states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 24 in the entry for LO and Page
    26 for ST and Page 28 for UT:
    "Data Elements with this VR shall not be multi-valued and therefore
    character code 5CH (the BACKSLASH "\" in ISO-IR 6) may be used."

    Would it not therefore be more accurate if the statement on Page 30
    were changed to say:
    "Data Elements with a VR of LO, ST, UT, SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall
    always have a Value Multiplicity of one."

    Or does "multi-valued" on Page 24 reflect something besides Value
    Multiplicity?

    -Kelly


  2. Re: Possible improvement to the wording in the standard

    You are right about ST - short text. It is never multi-valued.
    The change to the Standard that you suggest would better clarify this.

    However LO - long string - may be multi-valued, and in fact,
    there are several multi-valued data elements that have VR of LO.

    The backslash retriction is to the string value in LO and to
    the entire data element for ST (since it is single value).

    - Doug

    wrote in message
    news:1111179455.414863.68490@l41g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
    > It states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 30
    > "Data Elements with a VR of SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall always have a
    > Value Multiplicity of one."
    >
    > But then it states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 24 in the entry for LO and Page
    > 26 for ST and Page 28 for UT:
    > "Data Elements with this VR shall not be multi-valued and therefore
    > character code 5CH (the BACKSLASH "\" in ISO-IR 6) may be used."
    >
    > Would it not therefore be more accurate if the statement on Page 30
    > were changed to say:
    > "Data Elements with a VR of LO, ST, UT, SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall
    > always have a Value Multiplicity of one."
    >
    > Or does "multi-valued" on Page 24 reflect something besides Value
    > Multiplicity?
    >
    > -Kelly
    >




  3. Re: Possible improvement to the wording in the standard

    Doug,

    First of all, thank you very much for answering...

    I'm sorry, I think I misspoke when I said LO, I meant LT.

    >From PS 3.5-2003 Page 24

    "A character string that may contain one or
    more paragraphs. It may contain the Graphic
    Character set and the Control Characters, CR,
    LF, FF, and ESC. It may be padded with
    trailing spaces, which may be ignored, but
    leading spaces are considered to be
    significant. Data Elements with this VR shall
    not be multi-valued and therefore character
    code 5CH (the BACKSLASH "\" in ISO-IR 6)
    may be used."

    So it would also be the case for UT then.

    How would one go about proposing "Data Elements with a VR of LT, ST,
    UT, SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall always have a Value Multiplicity of
    one." as a modification to the standard on PS 3.5-2003 Page 30?

    -Kelly

    Doug Sluis wrote:
    > You are right about ST - short text. It is never multi-valued.
    > The change to the Standard that you suggest would better clarify

    this.
    >
    > However LO - long string - may be multi-valued, and in fact,
    > there are several multi-valued data elements that have VR of LO.
    >
    > The backslash retriction is to the string value in LO and to
    > the entire data element for ST (since it is single value).
    >
    > - Doug
    >
    > wrote in message
    > news:1111179455.414863.68490@l41g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
    > > It states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 30
    > > "Data Elements with a VR of SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall always have

    a
    > > Value Multiplicity of one."
    > >
    > > But then it states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 24 in the entry for LO and

    Page
    > > 26 for ST and Page 28 for UT:
    > > "Data Elements with this VR shall not be multi-valued and therefore
    > > character code 5CH (the BACKSLASH "\" in ISO-IR 6) may be used."
    > >
    > > Would it not therefore be more accurate if the statement on Page 30
    > > were changed to say:
    > > "Data Elements with a VR of LO, ST, UT, SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall
    > > always have a Value Multiplicity of one."
    > >
    > > Or does "multi-valued" on Page 24 reflect something besides Value
    > > Multiplicity?
    > >
    > > -Kelly
    > >



  4. Re: Possible improvement to the wording in the standard

    Once again, I MAY have shown my lack of understanding here on
    something... but hey, I'd rather be stupid in public than ignorant in
    private :-)

    Is it legal for Data Elements of VR LT, ST, and UT to have a VM of 0
    where it is NOT legal for Data Elements of type SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN to
    have a VM of 0?

    Here's what it says:

    Data Elements with a VR of SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall always have a
    Value Multiplicity of one.

    Here's what I proposed:

    Data Elements with a VR of LT, ST, UT, SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall
    always have a Value Multiplicity of one.

    Which wouldn't be right if VM of 0 were allowed.

    -Kelly

    kellyatdentrix@gmail.com wrote:
    > Doug,
    >
    > First of all, thank you very much for answering...
    >
    > I'm sorry, I think I misspoke when I said LO, I meant LT.
    >
    > >From PS 3.5-2003 Page 24

    > "A character string that may contain one or
    > more paragraphs. It may contain the Graphic
    > Character set and the Control Characters, CR,
    > LF, FF, and ESC. It may be padded with
    > trailing spaces, which may be ignored, but
    > leading spaces are considered to be
    > significant. Data Elements with this VR shall
    > not be multi-valued and therefore character
    > code 5CH (the BACKSLASH "\" in ISO-IR 6)
    > may be used."
    >
    > So it would also be the case for UT then.
    >
    > How would one go about proposing "Data Elements with a VR of LT,

    ST,
    > UT, SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall always have a Value Multiplicity of
    > one." as a modification to the standard on PS 3.5-2003 Page 30?
    >
    > -Kelly
    >
    > Doug Sluis wrote:
    > > You are right about ST - short text. It is never multi-valued.
    > > The change to the Standard that you suggest would better clarify

    > this.
    > >
    > > However LO - long string - may be multi-valued, and in fact,
    > > there are several multi-valued data elements that have VR of LO.
    > >
    > > The backslash retriction is to the string value in LO and to
    > > the entire data element for ST (since it is single value).
    > >
    > > - Doug
    > >
    > > wrote in message
    > > news:1111179455.414863.68490@l41g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
    > > > It states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 30
    > > > "Data Elements with a VR of SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN shall always

    have
    > a
    > > > Value Multiplicity of one."
    > > >
    > > > But then it states in PS 3.5-2003 Page 24 in the entry for LO and

    > Page
    > > > 26 for ST and Page 28 for UT:
    > > > "Data Elements with this VR shall not be multi-valued and

    therefore
    > > > character code 5CH (the BACKSLASH "\" in ISO-IR 6) may be used."
    > > >
    > > > Would it not therefore be more accurate if the statement on Page

    30
    > > > were changed to say:
    > > > "Data Elements with a VR of LO, ST, UT, SQ, OF, OW, OB or UN

    shall
    > > > always have a Value Multiplicity of one."
    > > >
    > > > Or does "multi-valued" on Page 24 reflect something besides Value
    > > > Multiplicity?
    > > >
    > > > -Kelly
    > > >



+ Reply to Thread