Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

2016-12-18 Thread Bert Verhees 
I completely agree with this argument from Heath :

I think it should be a strong recommendation rather than mandatory
considering it is currently optional and the need for backward
compatibility.

Op ma 19 dec. 2016 07:07 schreef Thomas Beale :

I knew that :)

On 19/12/2016 14:17, Grahame Grieve wrote:

Not sure about mixing URIs with UIDs... OTOH, usually easy to detect by
parsing.

there's a URI format for UIDS: urn:uuid:{lowercase}

That's the best to handle mixing them

Grahame


___
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

Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

2016-12-18 Thread Grahame Grieve 
>
> Not sure about mixing URIs with UIDs... OTOH, usually easy to detect by
> parsing.
>
there's a URI format for UIDS: urn:uuid:{lowercase}

That's the best to handle mixing them

Grahame


> - thomas
>
> On 19/12/2016 09:22, Heath Frankel wrote:
>
> I think it should be a strong recommendation rather than mandatory
> considering it is currently optional and the need for backward
> compatibility.
> I also think it maybe difficult to apply consistently in some cases such
> as feeder data. There are cases in CDA profiles where there are mandatory
> IDs and you have to populate it with something but then need to some how
> retain this same ID over revisions etc.
> I also think a uri should be an allowed type of UID to support ids that
> are not guids and possibly associated with real world ids such as lab
> result ids, etc.
>
> Regards
>
> Heath
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
> technical_lists.openehr.org
>



-- 
-
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grah...@healthintersections.com.au
/ +61 411 867 065
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

2016-12-18 Thread Thomas Beale 


right. Good argument from evidence for the UID. Want to create a PR with 
these notes?


Not sure about mixing URIs with UIDs... OTOH, usually easy to detect by 
parsing.


- thomas


On 19/12/2016 09:22, Heath Frankel wrote:
I think it should be a strong recommendation rather than mandatory 
considering it is currently optional and the need for backward 
compatibility.
I also think it maybe difficult to apply consistently in some cases 
such as feeder data. There are cases in CDA profiles where there are 
mandatory IDs and you have to populate it with something but then need 
to some how retain this same ID over revisions etc.
I also think a uri should be an allowed type of UID to support ids 
that are not guids and possibly associated with real world ids such as 
lab result ids, etc.


Regards

Heath



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

2016-12-18 Thread Heath Frankel 
I think it should be a strong recommendation rather than mandatory considering 
it is currently optional and the need for backward compatibility.
I also think it maybe difficult to apply consistently in some cases such as 
feeder data. There are cases in CDA profiles where there are mandatory IDs and 
you have to populate it with something but then need to some how retain this 
same ID over revisions etc.
I also think a uri should be an allowed type of UID to support ids that are not 
guids and possibly associated with real world ids such as lab result ids, etc.

Regards

Heath




On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:35 AM +1030, "Thomas Beale" 
> wrote:



I also think that would be a good idea, since ENTRY = clinical
statement. We could make it an openEHR rule.

- thomas


On 14/12/2016 00:24, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> There may be some advantages in routine application of uid at ENTRY level.
>
> Ian
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
>


___
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

Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

2016-12-18 Thread Thomas Beale 


I also think that would be a good idea, since ENTRY = clinical 
statement. We could make it an openEHR rule.


- thomas


On 14/12/2016 00:24, Ian McNicoll wrote:

There may be some advantages in routine application of uid at ENTRY level.

Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll





___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org