dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[johansa@xxxxxxxxxx]

> In reply to Johan,
>>Vector-borne diseases can be a DE group.
>
> But why can't it be a category as well? This is a matter that is still
> not clear. Where should the categories start and data element group
> sets take over? Anyway, this is more of an academic question, and not
> entirely relevant. it would seem that creating categories-category
> combos should be used for data entry, and that data element group sets
> should be used for anaysis.

It can, if you would collect data on

Malaria, vector borne
Malaria, non-vector borne

But you would not do that. But malaria could belong a DE group ("vector
borne"), and we could have DE group sets ("transmission"), when the DE
group set functionality is in place.

The categories are for creating sub-elements of data elements. That is,
let us enter data for dimensions of data elements. In this example, we
don't want to enter non-vector borne malaria, and thus the DE Malaria
could belong to the non-vector borne DE group, but not have this as
categoryoption/dimension. (Of course, given that I'm not mixing vector and
non-vector borne now, but the principle is the same)

I referred earlier to dimensions of an event, and dimensions of a data
element (definition). Dimensions of an event are categoryoptions.
Dimensions of the data definition are DE groups.

> 1) Current functionality for category-category combos is sufficient
> for the purposes of multidimensional data entry, and provides enough
> functionality for analysis of data based on the dimensions defined
> during the data element creation.
> 2) Current functionality for grouping of data elements by dimensions
> for analysis is insufficient and needs to be extended to include the
> concept of data element group sets.
>
> Capiche?

Io capisco tutti. We need the DE group sets, just like for orgunits. The
rest should cover all the examples I've seen so far