Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

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

Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

> > 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

Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

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

Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

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

Re: Could the specs group consider making uid mandatory?

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