Op 29-1-2013 21:48, Thomas Beale schreef: > I would be interested in Pablo & Bert's ideas... For my idea it serves to help identify the machine were the committer committed the dataset. It is hard to identify a machine absolutely, but combined with other facts, it can be a helpful hint. In a Microsoft environment it is possible to identify a machine, but only if the kernel communicates with the Microsoft-server-services. Some UNIX/Linux configurations offer similar identification-services. It is not a service, the kernel processes this without interaction to the user.
Querying these data only happens in case of a inspection/inquiry. Querying should be implemented as a service. I have implemented the audit-details-storage. The kernel retrieves the information, and as kernel maintainer, I have a simple dataset structure to store it in. I leave the discussion what it should be to others. It is stored in a separate database-pointer, but I haven't yet implemented the query-service for this. It is on the TO-DO list. --- Thinking about this, I was in discussion with a American physician, a few weeks ago, and I explained to them the audit-details, and the versioning of datasets. She was shocked, became a bit angry, she could not understand why a physician should invest for system-functionality which could serve to get them sued in case of malfunctioning. My argument that it could save them, it could also be used to proof that a complainer is wrong, did not make any difference. It was not only that she had a strong opinion, she became emotional. I hadn't expected that, because in the Netherlands every physician thinks that is completely normal to store audit-information. Maybe a good thing to remember when doing business with Americans :-) Bert
