and also, binding to URL seems like a bad decision for archetype maintainability
2011/2/21 Andrew Patterson <andrewpatto at gmail.com>: > Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot > look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without > looking at the formal 'scheme' dependent spec. > > So in the case of a 'http' URI, we can read the spec and know > what the bits mean - _for the purposes of fetching data > from web servers using HTTP_. I can't imagine how that > is possibly what is intended by putting a URI into an > archetype - we can't seriously be suggesting that everyone > who uses the archetype is all going to be descending on > some poor webserver named in the URL and fetching data > in some arbitrary format? > > So if you want a URI scheme that has identifiable bits > for snomed queries etc, someone needs to specify a > > urn:snomed:xxxx,yyyy,zzzz > > spec. If not, all you can do is compare URI's for equality > and assume there is some external mechanism for saying > what the URI actually means. > > Andrew > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
