Dear all, If openEHR wants to be really interoperable, it must have a mechanism to handle OIDs. Billions of specifications and standards in health informatics are deploying OIDS. Comparing them with the plague, probably in analogy with viruses and worms, does not help to solve issues. How for instance would you be able to exchange SNOMEDCT based coded data e.g. In an HL7 v3 CDA that is populated with archetypes and requires SNOMEDCT being identified with its OID. Here in the Netherlands we run 200.000.000 v3 messages a year through the national switchboard and minimum 250.000 annually for the perinatal registry. One single message instance contains usually between 10 and 1200 single data elements, each with a minimum of one OID. If openEHR wants to play some role in this, handle OIDs so that communication partners can understand you.
Such decisions should be based on rational underpinnings, not on biased preference. Vriendelijke groet, Dr. William Goossen Directeur Results 4 Care BV +31654614458 > Op 15 jun. 2017 om 03:18 heeft [email protected] > het volgende geschreven: > > Send openEHR-technical mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. AOM 1.4 - Archetype.uid a UUID or OID? (Thomas Beale) > 2. Re: AOM 1.4 - Archetype.uid a UUID or OID? (Pablo Pazos) > 3. RE: AOM 1.4 - Archetype.uid a UUID or OID? (Heath Frankel) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:09:52 +0100 > From: Thomas Beale <[email protected]> > To: Openehr-Technical <[email protected]> > Subject: AOM 1.4 - Archetype.uid a UUID or OID? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > > Bert picked up an anomaly in this PR > <https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-219> that I think should > probably be fixed. ARCHETYPE.uid is of type UUID in the AOM2 spec, but > of type HIER_OBJECT_ID in the AOM1.4 spec (the latter type is the > openEHR type for OIDs). However it appears that all ADL1.4 archetypes > that have a uid have it as a Guid (i.e. UUID), and I assume the various > tools do as well. We avoid Oids like the plague in openEHR, and I am not > aware of them being used anywhere. > > If we can verify that everything assumes a UUID for this field, then the > spec is wrong, and we should update it from 1.4.2 to 1.4.3, i.e. treat > this as an error correction. > > Could tool makers check this issue and report here? > > thanks > > - thomas > > > -- > Thomas Beale > Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com> > Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare > <https://intermountainhealthcare.org/> > Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation > <http://www.openehr.org> > Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society > <http://www.bcs.org/category/6044> > Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog > <http://wolandsothercat.net/> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20170614/fa534ee2/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:34:16 -0300 > From: Pablo Pazos <[email protected]> > To: For openEHR technical discussions > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AOM 1.4 - Archetype.uid a UUID or OID? > Message-ID: > <cabzgfwpkbufwfocaxbxygvepnuczvfd0tkjdqoy88or2-kc...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Never saw an OID in any tool I tested and I tested most of the open tools. > I would say UUID is the industry standard here :) > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Thomas Beale <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Bert picked up an anomaly in this PR >> <https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-219> that I think should >> probably be fixed. ARCHETYPE.uid is of type UUID in the AOM2 spec, but of >> type HIER_OBJECT_ID in the AOM1.4 spec (the latter type is the openEHR type >> for OIDs). However it appears that all ADL1.4 archetypes that have a uid >> have it as a Guid (i.e. UUID), and I assume the various tools do as well. >> We avoid Oids like the plague in openEHR, and I am not aware of them being >> used anywhere. >> >> If we can verify that everything assumes a UUID for this field, then the >> spec is wrong, and we should update it from 1.4.2 to 1.4.3, i.e. treat this >> as an error correction. >> >> Could tool makers check this issue and report here? >> >> thanks >> >> - thomas >> >> -- >> Thomas Beale >> Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com> >> Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare >> <https://intermountainhealthcare.org/> >> Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation >> <http://www.openehr.org> >> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society >> <http://www.bcs.org/category/6044> >> Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog >> <http://wolandsothercat.net/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- >> technical_lists.openehr.org >> > > > > -- > Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > Cel:(00598) 99 043 145 > Skype: cabolabs > <http://cabolabs.com/> > http://www.cabolabs.com > [email protected] > Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20170614/b2f3996a/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 01:17:37 +0000 > From: Heath Frankel <[email protected]> > To: For openEHR technical discussions > <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: AOM 1.4 - Archetype.uid a UUID or OID? > Message-ID: > > <syxpr01mb145562d7cd4ef515a66439689e...@syxpr01mb1455.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Thomas, > Your statement that the use of HIER_OBJECT_ID in the AOM1.4 spec is used for > OIDs is incorrect. HIER_OBJECT_ID is a complex type with a value attribute of > type UID, which may be either UUID, ISO_OID or INTERNET_ID. > > The bigger issue is the HIER_OBJECT_ID is incompatible with UUID from a XML > schema perspective as UUID is a simple type with a restricted string value > while HIER_OBJECT_ID is a complex type with a child element value. The V1.4 > AOM XML schema uses this HIER_OBJECT_ID type (as per the AOM specification) > and since the OPT schema inherits this model, it also uses this type and all > OPTs generated by CKM (and the template designer) populate the uid element > with the template GUID specified in the OET file. > > I suggest that the ADL 2 specification is that one that needs to change or > there needs to be a specified mapping between the two. > > Regards > > Heath > > From: openEHR-technical [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Thomas Beale > Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2017 5:40 AM > To: Openehr-Technical <[email protected]> > Subject: AOM 1.4 - Archetype.uid a UUID or OID? > > > > > Bert picked up an anomaly in this > PR<https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-219> that I think should > probably be fixed. ARCHETYPE.uid is of type UUID in the AOM2 spec, but of > type HIER_OBJECT_ID in the AOM1.4 spec (the latter type is the openEHR type > for OIDs). However it appears that all ADL1.4 archetypes that have a uid have > it as a Guid (i.e. UUID), and I assume the various tools do as well. We avoid > Oids like the plague in openEHR, and I am not aware of them being used > anywhere. > > If we can verify that everything assumes a UUID for this field, then the spec > is wrong, and we should update it from 1.4.2 to 1.4.3, i.e. treat this as an > error correction. > > Could tool makers check this issue and report here? > > thanks > > - thomas > > -- > Thomas Beale > Principal, Ars Semantica<http://www.arssemantica.com> > Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain > Healthcare<https://intermountainhealthcare.org/> > Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR > Foundation<http://www.openehr.org> > Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer > Society<http://www.bcs.org/category/6044> > Health IT blog<http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture > blog<http://wolandsothercat.net/> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20170615/9303fb2a/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > ------------------------------ > > End of openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 64, Issue 19 > ************************************************* _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
