Karsten Hilbert wrote: >>Richard is often abbreviated to Dick in English usage. >>No idea what the origin is - lost in the mists of time. >> >>So, if you get >> initial = D >> given = Richard >> >>you don't know that the D is an abbreviation for Richard. >>And if you do know that it is, there's no way to say so >> >> > >Well, is there a *need* to say so ? What's fundamentally >wrong with just storing the D as a second first name along >with Richard ? I probably am too much of a pragmatist. > >Karsten > > The discussion about how people should call themselves is in my opinion not a good discussion.
You have to deal with a person, and the name he gives to you. There are no rules. F.e. there are refugees who do not want to tell their real name. Do they have a right for medical care? If yes, you have to deal with the name you get from them. That is all you will get. And if someone calls himself: D. Richard Whatever, you can store untill further notice: Given Names: D. and Richard Initials: D. R. Lastname: Whatever The only thing you can do is to cover as much as possible the normal situations, and a qualifier for "initials" can help me in a special situation I am working for. I really do not see the problem with this. It depends, as Grahame says, which hat one is wearing. A Information System Standard which will be suitable for many applications, should give support the purpose of those applications. If it does not, it is not useable for those applications, than that will be bad news. Which hat is the Standard wearing? Regards Bert Verhees - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
