On 08/04/2011 01:49, Heath Frankel wrote: > > 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. >
for atomic concepts a la SNOMED, meaningless identifiers make sense; for complex artefacts like programming language source files - of which archetypes are an example, they don't really - they just obscures meaning from developers. Meaningless identifiers of the Guid variety make sense for deployed versions of these artefacts - i.e. generated template OPTs, assemblies etc. Where identification really matters is a) in data and b) in deployed software artefacts that were generated from templates & archetypes. The future may well be to do as David Moner (I think, or maybe Diego, can't remember now) said - to create archetype meta-data attributes to carry the pieces of the id, and generate the strings that we currently use as ids when and as needed. Attaching Guids to source archetypes can also be done obviously, but I think for source artefacts, Oids provide little gain and a lot of pain. - thomas * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/ab48c497/attachment.html>
