I agree that merging is (normally) only interesting for persistent compositions, that are the only kind of compositions which are candidat for simultaneously editing (branching), and then afterwards merging of the branches is needed.
I think, getting rid of the persistent compositions would solve these problems. I don't see objections against medication-lists in normal compositions. Maybe the persistent composition idea was something from the old days to have all medications handy together? If that is so, than we can consider that this way of preordening is not anymore needed because modern systems can quickly find medication-entries, and the extra advantage is that branching and merging is then also not needed anymore. Best regards Bert Verhees Op vr 18 aug. 2017 15:18 schreef Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org>: > > Naturally I am all for revising the specs (it's what we do ;) and throwing > out dead stuff. But one thing I have realised over the years is that many > of the scenarios (such as multi-system syncing) we thought of in the 1990s > and early 200s are only just coming onto the radar now. Progress is much > slower than many of us thought. > > Consequently, some types of implementation experience gained so far - > particularly anything cross-enterprise or regional - is not going to be an > indicator to the future. Of course, some kinds of experience, say with > using the RM, or ADL 1.4, AQL etc, has been giving us all the feedback that > we needed to make the updates we are currently making to the specifications. > > Probably what we should consider in this case is an update to the Change > control spec that describes a variant or guideline for using the model to > implement linear versioning, while allowing for later addition of branched > versioning when/if needed. > > - thomas > > On 18/08/2017 12:49, Pablo Pazos wrote: > > From Thomas comments, it is clear that we have such last two use cases, > internal versioning and cross-system versioning / sync / consolidation. > > Consider people here is talking about their own experience with the specs > under the use case they implemented. We can argue that internal versioning > is needed in 100% of the implementations while cross-system is a much less > implemented case. This doesn't mean that the current specs are not usable > and useful in abstract, but we should contextualize the discussion by use > case and by the frequency each is implemented. > > For internal versioning it is clear that distributed versioning spec > generate some friction at implementation time. IMO we need to address both > use cases trying to minimize friction for new developers. That can improve > the quality of the specs without print anything out. > > Also, I would like to hear more about implementations of both use cases > and the challenges implementers had to really validate the idea of > addressing both use cases explicitly in the specs. > > Cheers, > Pablo. > > > On Aug 18, 2017 5:39 AM, "Seref Arikan" <serefari...@kurumsalteknoloji.com> > wrote: > > I did not realise that this discussion reached the point of suggesting > that distributed versioning is taken out from the specs. I have been > designing and implementing lots of openEHR data syncing functionality which > relies on the distributed versioning specifications. I have heaps of work > pending, which will also use that part of the specs. I can tell you that > the current specs have worked just fine for me so far and they are up to > the same high quality as the rest of the specifications, so they are > absolutely usable and useful. > > The challenges of distributed versioning does not eliminate the need for > them, so I cannot agree with the suggestion to remove them. Sure, move > them around in the specs all you want, but please keep them. > > All the best > Seref > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> distributed versioning with branching was included to allow syncing of >> data gathered about the same patient in different EHR repositories. For >> most data, syncing the repos is trivial, since it's different data. >> >> The classic cases of potential clashes is medication list, problem list, >> basic clinical demographic data, etc. If a sync was started and two >> medication lists are found that are forks of a single earlier one, a manual >> merge will be required. >> >> We are only just starting to see the implementation of systems where >> syncing may be a question, so although there may be adjustments to make to >> the branched versioning model, I would not be in favour of throwing it out >> at this point. >> >> We are however going to move it to the BASE component and make it a >> standalone model. >> >> - thomas >> >> On 21/06/2017 09:19, Pablo Pazos wrote: >> >> Hi Bert, see below >> >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Pablo, I did it a few years ago, just dumped not-current versions in >>> a slow XML database, because, in normal cases they are never queried, and >>> when they need to be queried, there can always be found a faster solution. >>> >>> But of course, this was a linear version system. ExistDB supports >>> distributed versioning on XML out of the box. And you can also use a >>> normal, not OpenEHR, version system like Git or VCL. >>> >>> But when looking at how OpenEHR works, is there ever need of merging? Do >>> people edit concurrently same datasets? I think they are they always >>> working on new versions of datasets, there is only one exception, that is >>> the persistent Composition, there could occur merging problems. >>> >>> The openEHR versioning mechanism is like Git. The problem I see with >> this approach is that real users don't want to deal with that level of >> complexity just to track changes in a distributed way. openEHR allows >> branching, so if there is no merging, each user can be working on a >> different branch, seeing just part of the data. Merging is complex, but >> that is needed only if branching is allowed, so the problem is really >> branching. >> >> With branches, when a query is executed, it is getting data form the >> latest version of the CURRENT branch, potentially missing data from other >> branches. This might have patient safety issues also. >> >> That is the main reason I ask this because it is not clear to me that a >> good technical solution like distributed versioning, is the best for EHRs. >> Moreover considering that most documents will have 1 or 2 versions at most >> (talking about event). Of course there will be more versions for persistent >> compos. >> >> *Thinking out loud, wouldn't be interesting to have an alternative spec >> for versioning where only linear versions are allowed? (IMO that would be >> easier to implement even though the current spec includes that case).* >> >> >>> But I think, you don't need distributed versioning to handle this, a >>> locking system (like databases have) is, I think, good enough. That is how >>> classic EHR builders handle concurrency. >>> >>> Bert >>> >>> >>> On 21-06-17 03:04, Pablo Pazos wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I had this questions in mind for a long time: did someone implemented >>> the distributed versioning of openEHR? >>> >>> The specs define a great distributed versioning mechanism but it is a >>> little trickier to implement. Also there is no clear who will do the work >>> of managing that, and how that structure will be queried. It is very >>> difficult to me to think of an amendment sent to an EHR and that not being >>> available for all the parties looking at the EHR of the patient. >>> >>> In the case of the EHRServer I built, only linear versioning is >>> possible, there is only one latest version for each compo, and queries only >>> get data from latest versions. >>> >>> Just wondering, what do others did for versioning and what policies do >>> you have if you implemented the distributed approach in terms of branching, >>> merging and querying. >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> -- >>> Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez >>> Cel:(00598) 99 043 145 <099%20043%20145> >>> Skype: cabolabs >>> <http://cabolabs.com/> >>> http://www.cabolabs.com >>> pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com >>> Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-implementers mailing >>> listopenEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ openEHR-implementers >>> mailing list openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org >>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org >> >> -- >> Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez Cel:(00598) 99 043 145 <099%20043%20145> >> Skype: cabolabs <http://cabolabs.com/> http://www.cabolabs.com >> pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com Subscribe to our newsletter >> <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-implementers mailing >> listopenEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org >> >> -- 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-implementers >> mailing list openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ openEHR-implementers > mailing list openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-implementers mailing > listopenEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org > > -- 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-implementers mailing list > openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________ openEHR-implementers mailing list openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org
