RE: question about Party
Thanks, Heath, I missed your previous send message. Maybe I was not paying wel attention, or maybe it is the mailinglist system which seems sometimes not to distribute messages, or with delay. I also experienced that a few times. I agree that a demographic system can be seen as the owner of a demographic record. Thanks for this suggestion. Then regarding to SystemID's. There isn't really a standard for this. And what is a system? the computer? it's network-address? it's location? it's owner? the software running on a computer?, or only the database? (all these will change regularly) And an ID is only useful if except from unique identifying the system (which is not clear what a system is), it also can be used to localize a system, and identify the owner of the system. But I guess that this question is to difficult to solve in a mailinglist discussion. Bert Op dinsdag 25-08-2009 om 09:46 uur [tijdzone +1000], schreef Heath Frankel: > Try again. > > > > Heath > > > > From: Heath Frankel [mailto:heath.frankel@oceaninformatics.com] > Sent: Monday, 10 August 2009 10:46 AM > To: 'For openEHR implementation discussions' > Subject: RE: question about Party > > > > > Hi Bert, > > I have only just come across this question in my archives. I have > been trying to make some sense of all these owner IDs and object refs > with namespaces and types recently and feel we need to get some > consensus on the wiki somewhere. I was going to get a page started > but just haven’t got there yet. > > > > The Demographics model has a repository class in figure 1, although > not formally defined it logically represents a collection these > VERSIONED_PARTY objects. This to me is analogous to a repository of > EHRs, although the EHR is not a versioned object it does have an > attribute of system_id which appears to me to be equivalent to a > repository. > > > > Therefore I would suggest that the owner_id of a VERSIONED_PARTY is > your demographic repository/system ID. > > > > Continuing this thread to introduce my view of OBJECT_REF > representations, an OBJECT_REF to your VERSIONED_PARTY would also have > a namespace value of this demographic/system ID which may be > abbreviated within tightly coupled environments with only one instance > of each repository to local or demographic as described in the > support_im 4.3.14. I prefer to use the unabbreviated approach of > using the system ID as I am targeting distributed environments which > may have multiple instances of the same kind of repository, especially > when extracts are exchanged. > > > > Regards > > > > Heath > > > > From: openehr-implementers-bounces@openehr.org > [mailto:openehr-implementers-bounces@openehr.org] On Behalf Of Bert > Verhees > Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2009 6:51 PM > To: For openEHR implementation discussions > Subject: Re: question about Party > > > > > Op woensdag 29-07-2009 om 10:52 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Bert > Verhees: > > > PERSON inherits from Locatable, and Locatable has the attribute > ownerId. > It is not allowed to leave it empty. > > > > Excuse me, this email was wrong, the question is valid but wrong > formulated, sorry for that, I was busy in a telephone-call while > sending it (multitasking) > > The question I meant to ask is: > It is about storing a PERSON in a VERSIONED_OBJECT, the documentation > says: > > Each VERSIONED_OBJECT has a unique identifier recorded in the uid > attribute (a HIER_OBJECT_ID > typically containing a GUID), and a reference to the owning object > (e.g. the owning EHR) in the > owner_id attribute > Each VERSIONED_OBJECT has a unique identifier recorded in the uid > attribute (a HIER_OBJECT_ID > typically containing a GUID), and a reference to the owning object > (e.g. the owning EHR) in the > owner_id attribute > > Who is the owner of a PERSON (f.e. representing a patient) > > Thanks > Bert > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-implementers mailing list > openEHR-implementers@openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers