Design pattern: organizations part/partOf

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Issue: how to best express the structure of an organization.

Current model (Personel management, Organization topic), e.g. see Add Organization to Registry R-MIM.

There are two distinct yet similar mechanism that could be used to define the structure of the organization:

  1. The focal role is ASSIGNED, the scoping organization has two PART roles classes associated with it (OrganizationPart and OrganizationPartOf) to express the relationships with other organizational parts up&down the organization tree.
  2. The main choice also has a recursive RoleLink (relatedTo). This can be used to express that one ASSIGNED role is part of another ASSIGNED role, i.e. a refelcetion of the related organizational parts up&down the organization tree.

An example of a derived R-MIM based on the second option: Org register NL.gif

Discussion

Rene spronk 12:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC) NICTIZ has implemented the second option.

  • Rationale: The first option has the real disadvantage that it allows one to send the structure of the scoping organization of the focal assigned organization. The use-case calls fro the structure of the focal assigned organization, and not of the structure of the scoper thereof. The scoper of an assigned organization (e.g. a department) is the next organizational part up the organization hierarchy. So option 1 always forces one to go "up" the org tree.
  • If the model were to have PART roles classes associated with the playing enitity of the assigned role one would be able to express the relationships with other organizational parts up&down the organization tree.
  • The choice is therefore: do we add two PART roles and associate them with the player of the focal Role? Or do we encourage the use of the Role relationship?
  • 2009-01-15, MnM, Q2: Discussion between Rene, Lloyd, Grahame, Patrick L: There are clear use cases where the Part role-link is appropriate, e.g. service delivery location. Lloyd: both methods can be used, it depends on the semantics of the circumstances. Needs more time and discussion, to be followup up on an MnM hot topics call.

Lloyd to write a story board that describes the ever-so-subtle semantic difference between the two methods. --Grahamegrieve 13:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)