On 08/04/2011 14:28, pablo pazos wrote: > Hi Heath, > > Just analysing OIDs vs. URIs: > > > Usage: > OIDs are in use in health informatics and other areas. > URIs are in use everywhere in form of URLs > > Procesing: > OIDs lack internal processing > URIs can be processed > > Compatibility with actual identifiers: > > Inside archetypes, each node can be identified by a path, so if we use > URIs to identify an archetype, just appending the path to the URI we > get a valid URI to identify a node inside the archetyp. > > > I go with URIs.* > *
if you have a look at the Architecture Overview spec <http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/overview.pdf>, this is documented in some detail (more is needed... next release ;-). When Tony Shannon and I met a couple of years ago with Tim Berners-Lee, this was almost the only thing he found significant - that we could point to any knowledge model node or data instance node with a proper URI. Of course you can stick an Oid inside a URI, but I am still very unconvinced about Oids. I don't like making things complex when they can be simple. - thomas beale -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110408/d0679b1a/attachment.html>
