dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[Abyot Gizaw <abyota@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ola Hodne Titlestad <olati@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Hi Abyot,
>
> If you read my summary e-mails just before the skype conference you will
> see that my suggestion was NOT to have a different type of data element, and
> I understood from the skype chat that we agreed on the same.



Yes we agreed on the skype chat - but things do not fit smothly when it
comes to actual coding. Actually I was looking into the document prepared by
you. The number one task is "to represent patient data elements and add/edit
GUI"



> What we talked about was to possibly make a separation in the user
> interface to avoid confusing the users, but in the background use the same
> DataElement object, but I am not sure that will always be needed as there
> are lot of overlap between routine and CHIS data elements.
>
> As you say, if we want to easily reuse datasets and data entry forms
> functionality we need to use the DataElement object also for client data
> elements. And of course we want to reuse what Murid has implemented
> regarding option lists for pre-defined values for data elements.
>
> The separation comes in DataValue as the PatientDataValue will need other
> properties than the (routine) DataValue.


Yes I agree. But, I think, this will not require us to have a specific
dataelement different from what we have currently.


>
>
> And we also talked about the need to extend the DataSet object to include
> more properties that makes datasets more flexible and dynamic as we need
> them for CIS and also for survey data.


Yes we have talked about that. That is not my question, I am not yet into
this.


>
>
> So here I guess we all agree, there is no need to come up with a separate
> PatientDataElement.


That is also my bet!! And I am planning to reuse as many objects as possible
from the existing code.

But you didn't comment on my suggestion - differentiating the dataelements
using an attribute called "classification" and right now we have two
classification. Routine and Patient. What do you think?

Thank you
Abyot.


>
>
>
> best regards,
> Ola Hodne Titlestad
> HISP
> University of Oslo
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Abyot Gizaw <abyota@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Couldn't really convince myself as to the need to keep a separate track of
>> dataelements called patientdataelement. I just did an implementation for
>> patientdataelement ... but when giving it a thought about linking it with
>> some custom and predefiend values, then I see that one already in place by
>> Murod for the routine dataelements. And if we are going to have a case of
>> like recording multiple values for a single patient dataelement, then we
>> also will redo all the compex task of linking with options, categories and
>> their combinations, which is again in place for the routine dataelements.
>>
>> If the need to separate the two - routine and patient is only for the
>> purpose of managment, then I think it will be better if we could introduce
>> an attribute called 'classification' for dataelements. With this attribue we
>> can classify our dataelements like - Routine, Patient, Header, Footer,...
>>
>> Any input will be appreciated.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Abyot.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs<https://launchpad.net/%7Edhis2-devs>
>> Post to     : dhis2-devs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs<https://launchpad.net/%7Edhis2-devs>
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>