This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "Use of UUIDs in II.extension"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
:Most implementations use root to identify the ID-scheme, and extension as an ID that exists within (i.e. has been created according to) that ID-scheme. The ID Scheme uses/produces values for the extension attribute, the structure and layout are determined by the ID scheme. If it so happens that in itself it is a UUID then this doesn't change the generic mechanism. The identification of the ID scheme is NOT carried elsewhere in the RIM. A Role.scoper merely uses a particular identification, whetever that ID scheme may be. [[User:Rene spronk|Rene spronk]] 03:14, 2 Jun 2006 (CDT)
 
:Most implementations use root to identify the ID-scheme, and extension as an ID that exists within (i.e. has been created according to) that ID-scheme. The ID Scheme uses/produces values for the extension attribute, the structure and layout are determined by the ID scheme. If it so happens that in itself it is a UUID then this doesn't change the generic mechanism. The identification of the ID scheme is NOT carried elsewhere in the RIM. A Role.scoper merely uses a particular identification, whetever that ID scheme may be. [[User:Rene spronk|Rene spronk]] 03:14, 2 Jun 2006 (CDT)
 +
 +
==Discussion==
 +
MnM Conference call 20060630
 +
 +
*This is really a question of whether II.root is to be used for semantics.  If that question is answered, the answers to the above fall out
 +
*Additional discussion required on wiki related to this issue
 +
 +
{{Hot Topic}}

Revision as of 17:59, 30 June 2006

There are two views about whether it is appropriate to send a UUID (GUID) in the II.extension property:

1. It's perfectly ok. The II.root represents the assigning authority which provides semantic context for the UUID issued.

2. It's not terribly appropriate and meaningless. The II.root is not intended to convey semantics, merely ensure uniqueness. UUIDs are already globally unique, so having a separate root is just extra overhead. All semantics are conveyed by other RIM attributes (e.g. Role.classCode, Role.code, Role.scoper, Act.classCode, Act.code, Act.moodCode

So: which is it?

Most implementations use root to identify the ID-scheme, and extension as an ID that exists within (i.e. has been created according to) that ID-scheme. The ID Scheme uses/produces values for the extension attribute, the structure and layout are determined by the ID scheme. If it so happens that in itself it is a UUID then this doesn't change the generic mechanism. The identification of the ID scheme is NOT carried elsewhere in the RIM. A Role.scoper merely uses a particular identification, whetever that ID scheme may be. Rene spronk 03:14, 2 Jun 2006 (CDT)

Discussion

MnM Conference call 20060630

  • This is really a question of whether II.root is to be used for semantics. If that question is answered, the answers to the above fall out
  • Additional discussion required on wiki related to this issue
OpenHotTopic.GIF

This page documents an open MnM Hot Topic, i.e. a methodology issue requiring a resolution from Modeling and Methodology.