Hi Erik, I was suggesting that we enforce OIDs, in fact my intent was similar to yours, to open up the choice of what is used and not enforce the specially designed ID scheme currently used that requires upgrading to support namespacing making it have the same issues as the standard UID schemes.
I like the suggestion of URIs, although I also agree with Tom's later comment that within openEHR implementations we should try to limit the options of the URI schemes used. However, ADL and AOM shouldn't be restricted to this same set, to allow other implementation profiles for other reference models to make their own choices. Heath > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- > bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall > Sent: Wednesday, 6 April 2011 9:04 PM > To: For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Re: openEHR artefact namespace identifiers > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
