How about the idea of using the same UUID ofr the build_uid- and
uid-property, but then extended with a version number?
Giving a different UUID to the build_uid makes it impossible to a
machine to relate the build_uid to the original archetype.uid.
It seems that the build_uid is quite useless how it is arranged now. It
just indicates a new version, but not which version, and the which
versions are older and what the original version was. There is external
administration needed, I think this can be avoided.
Sorry if I miss the point. It might be explained somewhere.
Bert
On 17-06-17 15:11, Thomas Beale wrote:
On 16/06/2017 21:13, Bert Verhees wrote:
UID can also be INTERNET_ID, and the "extension" and double colon are
not required, so the HIER_OBJECT_ID cannot represent anything, but it
is a lot.
Of course it is a matter of taste, maybe there are good arguments to
make the archetype.uid available for so many ID-types.
I'm not saying it's the best design, and if we had our time again, we
might do something simpler. All I am saying is we need to understand
objectively what the model that is there says, so that developers and
users know how to work with it.
- thomas
_______________________________________________
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
