My assumption about how many implementation dictionaries are managed (though I haven't verified) is that you would almost never map a concept to a term, but occasionally someone will tell you that the ICD code for malaria is xyz, and you'll add that one mapping to a concept.
So I agree that enabling this workflow via a global property makes sense. -Darius (by phone) On Aug 30, 2011 3:01 PM, "Wyclif Luyima" <[email protected]> wrote: I get a feeling that some implementations want to be able to create new terms on the fly since they are not going to import terms as such, right? And others don't because the terms will be already imported so creating new ones would be a rare case me, therefore it would be no big deal for them to first go to another form and first create the new term before using it. To me, this calls for adding a boolean global property to allow/disallow creating terms on the fly and it will be up to the admin to set it accordingly. On another note, we(me and Darius) agreed during the scrum chat this morning as suggested by burke's email that we will be adding a service method that fetches term-to-term mappings for a reference term where it is the term b in the mapping i.e 'incoming' mappings to a term from other terms, then these will be listed on the create/edit reference term form as links to the actual terms(term As) that own the mapping. I agree with making name nullable but unique and leaving it blank during migration. Wyclif On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Burke Mamlin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 3... ________________________________ Click here to unsubscribe 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]
