On 18/11/2014 12:50, David Moner wrote: > Hi, > > I was not aware of this addition. It is clear that having these UIDs > it will be simpler to check if the archetype has changed, as you say. > But is it also the intention of these UIDs to be used to fill the > archetype_id attributes in the RM instances? Or the link between the > instance and an specific archetype will be done using the traditional > archetype identifier+version+revision+build? Moreover, if now we will > have unique identifiers with version+revision+build, why do we need an > additional UID? > > David
Hi David, Personally I don't think UIDs are needed; checking if an archetype has changed is easier to do with an MD5. UIDs are mostly a distraction. But some people and more particularly governments like them. So if we include them in the AOM, then I guess they have to work. So making them optional won't work - because they can't be generated from anything, you have to 'have them' which means they have to have been created at the right point in time, usually by the creator or modifier of some artefact. I don't see any utility in mixing UIDs into the human-readable ID (HRID) either in models or in data. They aren't shorter, and you can't infer anything from them as you can with the HRID, and noone who needs to inspect data (as inescapably happens routinely in integration development work) can easily work with UIDs. So their utility is largely imaginary in my view. But not everyone agrees with that.... - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141118/565dbde3/attachment.html>
