Oids probably are the one kind of id I would not propose for archetypes; the multi-axial id in current use + the proposed namespace id is equivalent to an Oid, just with some more constrained rules on what is on the axes, and readable values. The need for a highly managed id assignment system plus loss of readability and inferencing capability seems like a backward step to me. UUIDs seem a more obvious step. Note that UUIDs don't cope properly with namespaces nor versions, and there are already id systems that assign a UUID to the 'artefact' and a second UUID to the version, so that it can be inferred if two concrete artefact instances are really just versions of the same thing. Note that a UUID is massive overkill for a version id of something! But this just shows that simple assignment of UUIDs or Oids is no panacea....
- thomas On 06/04/2011 01:41, Heath Frankel wrote: > > > > Personally, I would like to propose the use of OIDs for controlled artefacts > as it is an ISO standard and already used in health informatics for > identifying such knowledge artefacts such as terminologies. I know OIDs are > not liked due their length, unreadability and managed allocation, but to me > it is a natural fit for this kind of artefact ID. Each publishing > organisation can get an OID and manage the items that they produce, this can > be done using a content management system automatically as is done by CKM. > And to be honest, the new namespaced ID scheme is likely to be longer and > requires management, and barely legible once we include the namespace and > additional delimiters. > > > * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110407/6b5c557d/attachment.html>
