+1 for reporting without the rest.
I do like Option C--at least as I'm interpreting it it's basically Option
A, but with a more intuitive resource name.
So basically:
GET /ws/reporting/cohortdefinition -> list all cohort definitions
POST /ws/reporting/cohortdefinition -> create a cohort definition (save for
later)
GET /ws/reporting/cohortdefinition/{uuid} -> get one cohort definition
POST /ws/reporting/cohortdefinition/{uuid} -> edit a cohort definition
(save for later)
GET|POST /ws/reporting/cohort -> error
GET /ws/reporting/cohort/{uuid}?[param=value&cohort=uuid] -> evaluates a
cohort, supports params and base cohort
POST /ws/reporting/cohort/{uuid} -> error
So, the other question up for vote...which way of representing data set
rows should we use? (I have a weak preference for option 2.)
metadata: {
columns: [ { name: "name", label: "Pretty Name", datatype:
"java.lang.String"}, ... ]
},
rows-option-1: [
[ "Alice", 5, true ],
[ "Bob", 7, true ]
]
rows-option-2: [
{ givenName: "Alice", age: 5, hasAllVaccinations: true },
{ givenName: "Bob", age: 7, hasAllVaccinations: true }
]
-Darius
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Michael Seaton <[email protected]> wrote:
> **
> Hey Darius,
>
> I've been staring at these choices and keep going back and forth among all
> 3, so I guess I don't have a strong preference. I would lean towards
> whatever best fits in with standard practice and convention. Option C
> seems like my preference at the moment, but I'm going to hit send before I
> change my mind again. One tangential question - can we use
> /ws/reporting/... rather than /ws/reportingrest/... ? Isn't "rest" implied
> here? I'm happy for "reporting" to give up it's namespace to
> "reportingrest" with an objective of one day bringing that functionality
> into the reporting module and doing away with the reportingrest module...
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On 02/16/2012 08:32 PM, Burke Mamlin wrote:
>
> What about Option C?
>
> GET|POST /ws/reportingrest/cohortdefinition/{uuid}
> GET /ws/reportingrest/cohortdefinitions[?q={query}]
> GET|POST /ws/reportingrest/datasetdefinition/{uuid}
> GET /ws/reportingrest/datasetdefinitions[?q={query}]
> GET /ws/reportingrest/cohort/{uuid}
> GET /ws/reportingrest/dataset/{uuid}[?param=value[¶m2=value2]]
>
> -Burke
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hi All, especially Mike, Burke, and Saptarshi,
>>
>> While working on the Pentaho sprint, we've realized that it one key way
>> to help people populate data warehouses from OpenMRS without writing lots
>> of brittle SQL is to write a PDI plugin for Kettle that accesses OpenMRS
>> data via web services. We've always intended to have the Reporting module
>> expose the ability to evaluate cohorts and datasets via web service. This
>> will be broadly useful, but this sprint gives us an excuse to do it.
>>
>> So, we want to let Reporting expose the list of available
>> CohortDefinitions, and DataSetDefinitions, and allow you to evaluate those,
>> RESTfully. Ben and I discussed this today and came up with two approaches,
>> so we wanted to get opinions about which way to go. Ben plans to code one
>> up tomorrow morning...
>>
>> *Option A (Exposes more of the way the Reporting module really works. I
>> prefer this, though it may be more confusing.)*
>>
>> *Definition Resources*
>>
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/cohortdefinition -> list of all cohort definitions
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/cohortdefinition/UUID -> one particular cohort
>> definition
>>
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/datasetdefinition -> list of all DSDs
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/datasetdefinition/UUID -> one particular DSD
>>
>> Also allow definitions to be created and edited via POSTs
>>
>> cohortdefinition resource:
>> uuid
>> name
>> description (in default)
>> list of parameters (in default)
>> href to /ws/reportingrest/evaluatedcohort/UUID // tells you how to
>> evaluate this
>>
>> datasetdefinition is similar
>>
>> *Definitions are evaluated via different resources*
>> *
>> *
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/evaluatedcohort // ERROR
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/evaluatedcohort/UUID // evaluate the
>> cohortdefinition with that UUID
>>
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/evaluateddataset // ERROR
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/evaluateddataset/UUID?date=2011-01-01 // evaluate a
>> DSD that has a "date" parameter against all patients
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/evaluateddataset/UUID?cohort=UUID&date=2011-01-01
>> // evaluate a DSD with a parameter against a specified cohort
>>
>> evaluateddataset resource:
>> uuid // of the underlying DSD
>> metadata // column definitions, etc
>> rows // either a list of lists (in the order of the columns in
>> metadata) or a list of column.name -> cell value maps
>>
>> *Option B (Simpler, and doesn't expose the key definition/evaluated
>> distinction from Reporting. Ben prefers this.)*
>> *
>> *
>> *A single resource for each definition/evaluated pair*
>> *
>> *
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/cohort -> list all cohort definitions (as v=ref)
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/cohort/UUID -> specific definition (as v=default)
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/cohort/UUID?v=evaluated -> expensive operation;
>> evaluates the cohort and includes the result as a "members" property
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/cohort?v=evaluated -> ERROR
>>
>> cohort resource
>> uuid // of the cohortDefinition
>> name
>> description (in v=default)
>> members (in v=evaluated)
>> evaluationContext (in v=evaluated)
>>
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/dataset -> list all DSDs (as v=ref)
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/dataset/UUID -> specific DSD (as v=default)
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/dataset/UUID?v=evaluated -> evaluates the DSD
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/dataset/UUID?v=evaluated&date=2011-01-01 ->
>> evalutes DSD with a date parameter
>> GET /ws/reportingrest/dataset/UUID?v=evaluated&cohort=UUID -> evaluates
>> DSD against a specified cohort
>>
>> This doesn't lend itself to letting you create cohort definitions or
>> DSDs by POSTing to WS, at least not via these resources.
>>
>> -Darius
>> ------------------------------
>> 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
>
> ------------------------------
> 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]
