We can only do 1 way now. We need rules to explain what the flipped relationship is and not all flags apply in the opposite direction.
Andrew S. Kanter, MD MPH [email protected] +1.646.469.2421 Sent from my iPhone 4G On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:02 PM, Wyclif Luyima <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: > 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). > > 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 from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list > > 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]
