I have a few thoughts, although the question has become less urgent to
me, because I can use the HIER_OBJECT_ID to store a UUID. Which is a bit
funny, but it is correct following the OpenEHR specs, so I can convince
others that it is right.
On 16-06-17 01:36, Heath Frankel wrote:
No one uses OIDs and this is not the problem.
I believe that William Goossen is depending on OID's in DCM, in which
archetypes can play a role. But for his case, he can add a
description-field, containing a OID. I think that would be better for
him, because then he can trust that there is always a usable OID in the
archetypes he refers to and not, like now in 99% of the archetypes is
the case in the uid-property, a UUID.
The issue is AOM 1.4 uses the complex type HIER_OBJECT_ID which has a
value attribute of type UID while AOM 2.0 uses simple type of UUID.
I think, best is when there is uniformity in the use of the standard,
the HIER_OBJECT_ID, which can be anything, with every possible semantic
meaning does not look right in a standard. As is in the definition, the
uid serves as a machine-readable identifier equivalent to the
archetype-id, which is human readable. For this purpose, it needs to be
unique.
But how hard is it for a computer to check if a ID is unique, when the
computer must guess what kind of Id is used? I think the definition of
the uid needs to be tighter. Now it is said in the specs: uid:
HIER_OBJECT_ID: "OID identifier of this archetype."
http://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/Release-2.0.6/docs/AOM1.4/AOM1.4.html#_archetype_class
This is definitely wrong, it can be anything, as long as it fits in
HIER_OBJECT_ID, which is quite a lot, and my original question was to
change the specs.**
And the best thing is to change it to its common practical use, which is
UUID.
Best regards
Bert
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
