Got it, now i see why we chose to keep the term-to-term mapping unidirectional for the first pass and i think this would be something to implement in the future,
Thanks Roger! Wyclif On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR) < [email protected]> wrote: > Is TRUNK-412 the latest version of the data model?**** > > ** ** > > If so, it appears that there can be a relation between a term and a concept > or between any two terms (regardless of source, your 2nd question). There > is no inverse mapping (your 1st question): **** > > **· **Concept_reference_term is mapped by concept_map to concept > with a map_type relationship. **** > > **· **Concept_reference_term a has an a_is_to_b concept_map_type > to concept_reference_term b via concept_reference_term_map**** > > These were different use cases, the first appropriate for mapping standard > vocabularies to concepts (or for module concept identification) and the > second appropriate for cross-mappings between or within vocabularies.**** > > ** ** > > To get the bidirectional relationship, one could **** > > **a) **put the inverse relationship into concept_map_type as another > field; **** > > **b) **put the inverse relationship into concept_reference_term_map > as a b_is_to_a field; or **** > > **c) **require 2 concept reference term maps, one with a::b and the > other with b::a. **** > > If a map_type can have more than one inverse, then (c) is the only option. > If one wants map concept to term, then (a) is the only option.**** > > ** ** > > The way the methods getConceptByMapping() and getConceptsByMapping() work > pretty much determines the direction of the term-concept relationship. If > we want to map in the other direction, we may need another signature for > these functions with a map type parameter, and a function > List<Concept_Reference_Term> getMapsByConcept(Concept c, ConceptMapType m). > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Wyclif > Luyima > *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2011 3:45 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [OPENMRS-DEV] Concept Reference Term Map associations**** > > ** ** > > Hi, **** > > ** ** > > If term A is mapped to term B, then term A should be be visible to term B > as a mapped term too, i.e the relationship should be bidirectional. This is > not the current implementation and i feel it would be strange though i > recall when i asked this the last time, we chose to ignore it and just make > it unidirectional.**** > > ** ** > > And can one map two reference terms in different concept sources or they > should be in the same dictionary?**** > > ** ** > > Wyclif.**** > ------------------------------ > > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > **** > ------------------------------ > Click here to > unsubscribe<[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l>from > OpenMRS Developers' mailing list _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
