On 03-10-14 18:36, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 03/10/2014 16:40, Ian McNicoll wrote: >> >> When this published v1 archetype needs to go back into review it gets >> labelled as >> >> org.openehr::openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.lab_test.v1.0.1-unstable+build.e34dgtj67856 >> >> or using the uid - >> 123rhturytu55634567.v.1.0.1-unstable+build.e34dgtj67856 > > Probably a side issue from Ian's main points, but.... > > I think that at the system interface (i.e. in any web service > interfaces), we should stick to > org.openehr::openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.lab_test.v1.0.1 > > not UID-based archetype ids. Internal to the system, a translation > might be done from the above id to e.g. an instance UID, or something > entirely different, that the system wants to use. > > When AQL queries are built, and when data are shared between systems, > the multi-axial id should be used - think of it as a safe symbolic id. > Actual data can have whatever it likes as ids, as long as it can > translate properly between what it uses internally and what the > outside world uses.
My main objection against MLHIM was always that it had UUID's as element-names. For a programmer this is not very nice. Bert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141003/ad967ab4/attachment.html>
