Thomas, Your proposed changes to the archetype Identifiers and governance actually aligns with the same management and inferencing requirements as OIDs, the only benefit left is the readability, but even that is becoming hard to do with the additional namespaces and delimiters. In addition, having meaningful IDs and deriving meaning from IDs is counter to what good practice in terminology identifier management.
If we choose a GUID (or any other standard UID) for the archetype ID, then I see no reason why the VersionedObjectId scheme cannot be used for managing versions of the archetype as long as it is properly administered. Heath From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Friday, 8 April 2011 1:11 AM To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: openEHR artifact namespace identifiers 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/20110408/13a45640/attachment.html>
