dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[Viet Nguyen <phamquocviet@xxxxxxxxx>]

2010/3/4 Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx>

> 2010/3/4 Lars Helge Øverland <larshelge@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >
> > 2010/3/4 Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> I agree depending on the uniqueness of names is not a good idea.  I
> >> saw John said that facilities in India do have codes - the 16 digit
> >> ones which are built hierarchicly (is that a word?).
> >
> > OK I wasn't aware of this code.. Certainly if we could generate a string
> > based on the orgunit code plus its ancestors it will be unique. How does
> one
> > generate a fixed-length alphanumeric string based on this sequence of
> names
> > btw?
>
> I'm thinking that we just generate the local part.  The facility codes
> already exist.  So in Db you would have fields for patient id and
> issuing-facility. I think it is common to store the issuing authority
> with an id anyway.  In most cases the issuing-facility might be null
> because it could be assumed.  If a patient is moved into the db from
> somewhere else, or if patients are combined from different facilities
> for one of many reasons, then the facility code would need to be
> populated to avoid clashes.  This bears some resemblance I think to
> the uuid disambiguation referred to by Saptarshi.


OK. Good point.

Even if we generate the facility part of the id on-demand we would still
want it to be fixed length...?


Please continue discussing about the identifier on this thread.
I don't have strong opinion about this problem, let John and guys discuss
and finish it. Then I could do the coding part...

Regards,
-- 
Viet Nguyen