On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ola Hodne Titlestad <ol...@ifi.uio.no>wrote:
> Hi Abyot, > > If you read my summary e-mails just before the skype conference you will > see that my suggestion was NOT to have a different type of data element, and > I understood from the skype chat that we agreed on the same. Yes we agreed on the skype chat - but things do not fit smothly when it comes to actual coding. Actually I was looking into the document prepared by you. The number one task is "to represent patient data elements and add/edit GUI" > What we talked about was to possibly make a separation in the user > interface to avoid confusing the users, but in the background use the same > DataElement object, but I am not sure that will always be needed as there > are lot of overlap between routine and CHIS data elements. > > As you say, if we want to easily reuse datasets and data entry forms > functionality we need to use the DataElement object also for client data > elements. And of course we want to reuse what Murid has implemented > regarding option lists for pre-defined values for data elements. > > The separation comes in DataValue as the PatientDataValue will need other > properties than the (routine) DataValue. Yes I agree. But, I think, this will not require us to have a specific dataelement different from what we have currently. > > > And we also talked about the need to extend the DataSet object to include > more properties that makes datasets more flexible and dynamic as we need > them for CIS and also for survey data. Yes we have talked about that. That is not my question, I am not yet into this. > > > So here I guess we all agree, there is no need to come up with a separate > PatientDataElement. That is also my bet!! And I am planning to reuse as many objects as possible from the existing code. But you didn't comment on my suggestion - differentiating the dataelements using an attribute called "classification" and right now we have two classification. Routine and Patient. What do you think? Thank you Abyot. > > > > best regards, > Ola Hodne Titlestad > HISP > University of Oslo > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Abyot Gizaw <aby...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Couldn't really convince myself as to the need to keep a separate track of >> dataelements called patientdataelement. I just did an implementation for >> patientdataelement ... but when giving it a thought about linking it with >> some custom and predefiend values, then I see that one already in place by >> Murod for the routine dataelements. And if we are going to have a case of >> like recording multiple values for a single patient dataelement, then we >> also will redo all the compex task of linking with options, categories and >> their combinations, which is again in place for the routine dataelements. >> >> If the need to separate the two - routine and patient is only for the >> purpose of managment, then I think it will be better if we could introduce >> an attribute called 'classification' for dataelements. With this attribue we >> can classify our dataelements like - Routine, Patient, Header, Footer,... >> >> Any input will be appreciated. >> >> Thank you >> Abyot. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: >> https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs<https://launchpad.net/%7Edhis2-devs> >> Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : >> https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs<https://launchpad.net/%7Edhis2-devs> >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
