On 23/01/2013 05:11, pablo pazos wrote: > Hi all, this question is related t oa previous thread: > http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/2012-November/007392.html > > > > I just want to check a couple of things to validate my implementation > of an openEHR Server. > > The definition of AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id is: "Identity of the system > where the change was committed. Ideally this is a machine- and > human-processable identifier, but it may not be.". > Let's say I have a CLIENT where COMPOSITIONS are created, and a SERVER > where COMPOSITIONS are committed by the CLIENT. > If I understand this correctly, AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id would be the > SERVER ID. If so, where can I specify the CLIENT's ID (the system that > committed the COMPOSITION). This information is needed to have the > complete log of the commit. > > In the other hand, where COMPOSITIONs are imported from the CLIENT, > the FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id is the "Identifier of the system > which handled the information item", so it is the CLIENT's ID. > > If this is right, why do we have different definitions for X.system_id > for different scenarios of sending information from a CLIENT to a > SERVER (e.g. the 1st case is the SERVER's ID, on the 2nd is the > CLIENT's ID). > >
Hi Pablo, The original idea was that a logical EHR service id would be used. A 'client id' is likely to be meaningless and untrackable. The id is only useful if it is relatively permanent, and future information requests can be made to that logical EHR system. It would also be the id of the system that other users who could see this information were using, and where medico-legal investigations take place. In a more cloud-based world, it might not seem so clear, because numerous organisations might be committing to a physical service that supports multi-tenanting. However, in either case, it should be something like a domain name of an EHR service that is understood to be the legal EHR repository facility of the organisation in which the clinician works. There might be an argument for having another field for 'client device type' (e.g. phone, iPad etc). - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130123/deb339a5/attachment-0001.html>
