Instead of system_id, should it be called the EHR_service_id or the repository_id? To be meaningful, should there be a reference service to allocate a unique id to each service/repository, or should the system_id be a URL?
Colin On 9 Sep 2014, at 2:06 am, pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com<mailto:pazospablo at hotmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Heath. Can others comment on this to have a unified view and specific definition of the system id? I think i have 3 different definitions right now, and one contradicts the other :) Maybe the system_id hasn't a specific definition so might be used differently by different implementations. (?) In the end is just an id, does it matter if it's attached to a system or service or if it's something related to an organization or if it's a host domain? What do you think? -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com<http://cabolabs.com/es/home><http://twitter.com/ppazos> ________________________________ From: heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:heath.fran...@oceaninformatics.com> To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org> Subject: RE: Small question about commits and AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 23:25:43 +0000 Hi Pablo, No I don't agree. The point I tried to explain was that the system is the EHR repository, not an application. So if there is one or more applications using a repository at one or more organisations the is just one system id. In an Australian jurisdiction I have a repository that is used by multiple instances of 5 applications at 100 diff healthcare facilities managed by gov't and non gov't organisations. There is only one system id for the repository. Heath ________________________________ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Small question about commits and AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id From: pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com<mailto:pazospa...@hotmail.com>> To: openeh technical <openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org>> CC: Hi! Thanks for your answers. It is a little tricky but from Thomas comments, I think that the "system" is not a technical term, but is more related to an organizational term. For example, if I use the same system / service to hold EHRs from 2 different hospitals, I really have 2 system ids instead of one. So the system_id doesn't depend on the technical architecture, but depends on how the business is organized. Is that correct? Again, the description from the specs doesn't help to understand this ("Identity of the system where the change was committed", so it depends on what a "system" is for us). For the next version of the specs I think we can update that description and maybe give a couple of examples. What do you think? -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com<http://cabolabs.com/es/home><http://twitter.com/ppazos> ________________________________ Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:47:35 +0100 From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com> To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org> Subject: Re: Small question about commits and AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id Heath, this is correct, you were not wrong for 10 y ;-) We don't record the name or type or id of the application, and I am not sure even now if that would be of any use. I can't see that it would be. The system_id is for exactly the purpose that Heath as explained here. - thomas On 21/08/2014 00:27, Heath Frankel wrote: Hi Thomas & Pablo, I am finding the words in the this discussion ambiguous, and the specification does help to clarify. Here is my interpretation of AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id. I have an EHR service, which is used by two different application, one is a hospital system and another a mobile application that may not be related to the hospital system but share the same EHR service. When the hospital system and mobile application commits something they are using the same system_id, the system_id of the EHR service. If there is an exchange of data between this EHR service and another organisations EHR service via an EHR extract, the system ID will be used in the other organisations EHR service to identify that the commit was performed in the original organisations system_id. Therefore, the system_id identifies the system that is assigning version identifiers in the EHR repository, i.e. the AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id matches the system_id component of the version.uid. This is important for distributed versioning. So in Pablo?s scenario, it is one system of multiple components with multiple components sharing the same EHR service, the mobile and the EMR would use the same system_id. Has my interpretation been wrong for 10 years? If so, then we need clarity added to the specification. _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org>http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org>http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ##################################################################################### Scanned by MailMarshal - M86 Security's comprehensive email content security solution. ##################################################################################### ________________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. The CTC is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the CTC. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. ________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140908/130562fc/attachment-0001.html>
