Hi, Only an attribute will not be enough. It has to be accompanied by rules.
Information will be stored in various contexts and not always in the same system. The same information will be stored in separate contexts. A change in the status of the 'Lifecycle marker' in one machine will not result in changes in other machines, unless there is a replication service. It is unlikely that all systems will be able to deal with such a service. In order to handle this we need rules. My suggestion for a rule would be: the 'Lifecycle marker' is valid (maintained) in one system only. Moving from one jurisdiction to an other means that the person that takes responsibility for the admission of this information into a new jurisdiction/system sets the marker to: received and admitted. Part of the rules is a state machine that provides all the states of the 'Lifecycle marker'. Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands +31 252 544896 +31 654 792800 > From: "Thomas Beale" <thomas at deepthought.com.au> > Reply-To: "Thomas Beale" <thomas at deepthought.com.au> > Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:16:55 +1000 > To: Openehr-Technical <openehr-technical at openehr.org> > Subject: Re: Pathology requirements CONTRIBUTION - 2 versions at once > > That is why I am suggesting that all such Entries havea lifecycle > marker. This is somehting which I think our colleagues at UCL have long had in > their system, and I have never seen a scenario which I thought justified it > until > now... - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
