Burke, i asked this mainly in the direction of concept reference term maps, i believe for concept mappings we might have to do it in a later release.
Wyclif On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Burke Mamlin <[email protected]>wrote: > As it stands, we have only modeled the name of mapping types in one > direction (i.e., for A → B, but not yet for B → A). Therefore, we have two > choices: > > 1. Use what we've got with minimal addition for 1.9 and stick with > one-way mappings. In this case, concepts would continue to have a property > listing their mappings, but only for mapping in which the concept is the > *subject* (i.e., "A"). We add an API call to request all incoming > mappings for a concept – i.e., get all mapping where concept X is the * > object* ("B"). These can be added to the concept page under mappings > as a "Other concepts mapped to X" where each these incoming mappings would > be presented as links (taking you to the other concept if you want to edit > the mapping). > > 2. We design support for bidirectional concept mappings in 1.9. This > would require adding names for a_is_to_b as well as b_is_to_a for each > mapping type and then making the API manage inverting mappings as needed > when setting the properties for a concept so the concept is always the > subject (on the "A" side of the mapping). This would have the benefit of > mappings appearing & being editable from either concept but would add > design > & coding work into 1.9. > > Personally, I'd favor going with #1 and then planning on bidirectional > support if needed within 1.10+. > > -Burke > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Wyclif Luyima <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > _________________________________________ 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]
