I think it should be a strong recommendation rather than mandatory considering it is currently optional and the need for backward compatibility. I also think it maybe difficult to apply consistently in some cases such as feeder data. There are cases in CDA profiles where there are mandatory IDs and you have to populate it with something but then need to some how retain this same ID over revisions etc. I also think a uri should be an allowed type of UID to support ids that are not guids and possibly associated with real world ids such as lab result ids, etc.
Regards Heath On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:35 AM +1030, "Thomas Beale" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I also think that would be a good idea, since ENTRY = clinical statement. We could make it an openEHR rule. - thomas On 14/12/2016 00:24, Ian McNicoll wrote: > There may be some advantages in routine application of uid at ENTRY level. > > Ian > Dr Ian McNicoll > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > office +44 (0)1536 414994 > skype: ianmcnicoll > email: [email protected] > twitter: @ianmcnicoll > > _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
