l changes this is
dangerous, because the error can come unnoticed.
>
>>
>> And on the other hand, if you have all archetypes with a unique ID,
>> you can safely inter-operate, because, then you are sure, it is the
>> same archetype to which the Locatable points.
>
> Ithink this is a different problem. I would expect to support the use
> of both UIDs and/or multi-axial ids in data, depending on the scope of
> sharing and so on. Converting between multi-axial and UID form will be
> easy in the future.
OK, my question will then be, the only question which is important:
Where to, do you connect the definition of a dataset (archetypeID in a
Locatable)?
To some humanly readable ID, or to a considered unique ID?
Thanks again for your time.
As said, I think I have made my point very clear and to avoid that I
become a personal factor in this discussion I will leave the activities
on this to others for some time.
best regards
Bert
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121208/fb176d03/attachment-0001.html>
ubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121208/b7fb0d6d/attachment.html>
the future.
In some systems, it might be the case that only UIDs are used, but that
implies that noone ever needs to look at the data itself, or at EHR
Extracts, or to visualise data at some debugging level. I have never
seen any system like that ever.
So in summary, I believe that what
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 7 dec. 2012 om 18:18 heeft Thomas Beale het volgende geschreven:
> On 07/12/2012 12:14, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
>> Dear Ian,
>> OIDs are a requirement in some legislations, including the Austrian EHR
>> space.
>> Can you please explain why they "become a nightmare
you are right Thomas, I confused Oids and Uids. But my arguments do relate to
UIDs, sorry for that.
Bert
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 8 dec. 2012 om 08:52 heeft Thomas Beale het volgende geschreven:
>
> UIDs are good for identifying an artefact, no matter what other
> characteristics (inclu
the reason, I already explained, is that it still is restrictive, but less then
now.
In large organizations like regional healthcare ICT eco-systems or universities
people cannot use obvious names for their concepts because the concept is part
of the archetypeId
That is a restriction.
It is a
UIDs are good for identifying an artefact, no matter what other
characteristics (including name, purpose etc) may change - so they are
good for tracking in lifecycle and version management. Although, they
don't track versions themselves - you need a multi-part id for that,
which typically inv
'pression_arterial', etc.
- thomas
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121208/2b427a3d/attachment.html>
8 matches
Mail list logo
