Hi! On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 17:51, Ian McNicoll <Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > artefact identification proposals > at > http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/am/knowledge_id_system.pdf ... > se.skl.epj::openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1
...Then discussions regarding UUIDs, OIDs etc followed in several messages.... Is not the simplest thing to just use URIs [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier ], or even better allowing non-latin characters by using IRIs [ http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987 ]? Then organizations can choose if they want to base IDs on domain-names, UUIDs, OIDs or whatever that fits in a URI (which might be a URN, see list at http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/ ). Some archetype authoring organizations may like names with semantics, some may not, so why enforce any of the views. Now since metadata is going to be well defined inside the file, the need for semantics in identifiers or file names is gone so the main thing left is that we want a _unique_ string. URIs are supposed to be unique. Some URI-examples: urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6 urn:oid:1.3.6.1.2.1.27 urn:lsid:chemacx.cambridgesoft.com:ACX:CAS967582:1 http://id.skl.se/openEHR/EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1 http://schema.openehr.org/openEHR/EHR/EVALUATION/problem/v3 urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-38012 I see no point in enforcing usage of OIDs as suggested in some responses. The idea of not changing the ID if/when transferring responsibility of an archetype between authorities sounds very reasonable if the content is unchanged. When I visited Brazil, I noticed that the MLHIM project's development version was using UUIDs for the artifacts (CCDs) that correspond to what is called archetypes in openEHR. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733
