What kind of identifier should this be? ENTRY is not versioned. Will this UID be a version independent identifier or should it also keep references across a version hierarchy?
I agree that there are good reasons to add some identifier on an ENTRY. And it must not be mandatory - because it breaks existing systems. Which also tells it is not needed since existing systems didn't need to use the optional UID. Vennlig hilsen Bjørn Næss Produktansvarlig DIPS ASA -------- Opprinnelig melding -------- Fra: Thomas Beale <[email protected]> Dato: 19.12.2016 02:07 (GMT+01:00) Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory? right. Good argument from evidence for the UID. Want to create a PR with these notes? Not sure about mixing URIs with UIDs... OTOH, usually easy to detect by parsing. - thomas On 19/12/2016 09:22, Heath Frankel wrote: 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
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
