As far as I understand, and I also implemented it like that, there should never be functionality to delete data. Accidental deletion can only occur when you pass the software and hack on the database directly. That should never occur and if it does, the database should be restored to a safe point in the backup routine.
A folder is a versioned immutable object, that can never be changed or deleted, according the specs, or did I miss a change? Sorry in that case for my speaking while not being up to date. I don't read the specs every day. Bert Verzonden vanaf mijn Xperia™ van Sony-smartphone ---- Seref Arikan schreef ---- >My point was more about querying aspects. Tom emphasized data integrity >aspects. > >I think we've survived just fine so far without any mechanisms similar to >foreign keys in relational dbs that would stop a folder from being deleted, >so I'd say go with folders as you intend to. > >My concerns can (probably) be handled by smarter Aql down the line. > >On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Dileep V S <dil...@healthelife.in> wrote: > >> Very interesting discussion that has helped us get some of our thoughts >> clarified. We have started building a virtual folder as a service outside >> Ethercis to cover our requirements and are hoping to migrate the structure >> into the EHR server at a later date. >> >> The plan is to cover both the things mentioned in Thomas's response. We >> intend to get a list of compositions associated with a folder from this >> service and pass it to the AQL to get what we want. >> >> However, I am not sure how to rebuild the folder structure if it is lost. >> We do not have any folder related information inside Compositions and so >> the query can only go from folder to the composition and not the other way. >> Keeping folder details in Composition may not be a good idea as folder is >> meant to be virtual grouping and can have some dynamism around it. Also >> same composition can, in theory, be part of multiple folders. There is also >> the concept of a folder hierarchy that exists only within the folder >> service. >> >> regards >> >> Dileep V S >> *Founder* >> HealtheLife Ventures LLP >> m: +91 9632888113 >> a: 106, Innovation Centre, IIIT, Electronics City, Bangalore 560100 >> w: healthelife.in e: dil...@healthelife.in >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> The easiest way to think about this question is: if someone trashed the >>> Folder structure, could we (some admin app) rebuild it? The answer is >>> interesting. It should normally be possible to rebuild the Folder / >>> Composition association structure (it's not containment, just referencing), >>> but of course, if you stored other information in the Folders, for example >>> in the recently SEC-approved other_details structure, then you would lose >>> that. >>> >>> So the Folder approach does two things: >>> >>> - represents a pre-built query result (the Folder/Composition >>> associations) - giving instant access, and avoiding having to construct >>> the >>> query, which is usually somewhat messy. >>> - allows other information to be stored directly about the thing the >>> Folder represents, e.g. admission / stay in a facility. >>> >>> - thomas >>> >>> On 17/08/2018 16:20, Seref Arikan wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> When the fact that the Composition is associated to an encounter or >>> episode of care is recorded by including a reference to that composition in >>> a folder, some clinical context/information related to that composition is >>> now stored outside the composition, by means of a refence in a folder >>> >>> Unless I'm missing an Aql feature that can help, you can no longer select >>> those compositions via Aql (since Aql does not support/specify how to >>> resolve refs) >>> >>> If you follow the encounter id approach you mentioned, then you could use >>> Aql. >>> >>> In fact, if Ethercis had support for Folder, Dileep would still not be >>> able to get those compositions with a singl query: he'd need to fetchs uids >>> from a folder with one query, then perform a second query to get >>> compositions in the way I suggested. >>> >>> I'm probably being unnecessarily picky here, just pointing at the >>> difference between approaches and trying to put my finger on any downstream >>> issues. I'm not doing a great job of it though :) >>> >>> On Friday, August 17, 2018, Ian McNicoll <i...@freshehr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Seref, >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I understand your concerns here. I think the use case is >>>> where there is a need to group compositions by some other higher level >>>> construct which usually reflect something like an admission, episode of >>>> outpatient care or perhaps a community plan of care. >>>> >>>> As Dileep has indicated he probably would use folders if Ethercis >>>> supported them. Another alternative is to create an Encounter ID for each >>>> new encounter (which in Dileep's example, I think I would call an episode >>>> of care, and simply tag each composition with that Encounter ID e.g create >>>> a cluster archetype to hold this in every Composition/ other_context. I >>>> have done that on other projects. So it is a case of looking of all >>>> composition with EncounterId = x >>>> Now I would probably go down the Folder route, if I could. >>>> Ian >>>> Dr Ian McNicoll >>>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 >>>> office +44 (0)1536 414994 >>>> skype: ianmcnicoll >>>> email: i...@freshehr.com >>>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll >>>> >>>> >>>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org >>>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. >>>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC >>>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 13:59, Seref Arikan < >>>> serefari...@kurumsalteknoloji.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm used to thinking compositions as semantcally self contained units >>>>> of information, at the very least using references to other means of >>>>> expressing semantics (as in terminologies) >>>>> >>>>> What you're describing seems to take some clincal semantics out of the >>>>> composion and if we have multiple ways of doing that, it may hurt >>>>> reusability of queries and data. >>>>> >>>>> Do you think we can find a way of expressing this semantcs without >>>>> losing its trace within the cmposition? >>>>> >>>>> (Sorry for the typos, on the phone..) >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, August 17, 2018, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There is a bigger question of how best to model 'encounter' and >>>>>> 'admission', which some implementers are doing with Folders, particularly >>>>>> DIPS in Norway. I suspect that some version of using Folders (or else >>>>>> some >>>>>> kind of tagging, which is semantically equivalent) will be the long term >>>>>> approach to doing this. >>>>>> >>>>>> - thomas >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17/08/2018 10:54, Dileep V S wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you write an AQL to query only on a list of specific compositions? >>>>>> Is there any sample for reference? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am trying to create the concept of clinical encounters and maintain >>>>>> a collection of compositions per encounter. I am using AQL to retrieve >>>>>> data >>>>>> per encounter and need to pass the corresponding set of compositions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks in advance >>>>>> >>>>>> regards >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thomas Beale >>>>>> Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com> >>>>>> Consultant, ABD Project, 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/> | The Objective Stance >>>>>> <https://theobjectivestance.net/> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>>>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org >>>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_ >>>>> lists.openehr.org >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing >>> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thomas Beale >>> Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com> >>> Consultant, ABD Project, 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/> | The Objective Stance >>> <https://theobjectivestance.net/> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org >>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_ >>> lists.openehr.org >>> >>> >> > >_______________________________________________ >openEHR-technical mailing list >openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org >http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
