dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 15 September 2011 10:01, Ime Asangansi <asangansi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Bob, the pdf is useful.
>
> When you mean codes, you mean the unique id for the record?
>

I wish life were so simple :-)  There are quite a few ways that an
identifiable object (eg Orgunit) can be judged unique:

1.  the primary database key
2.  the name
3.  the uuid
4.  the code

1 and 2 are not good for a number of reasons.

3 is quite ok except that (a) its a bit long and (b) we might have to map to
data from elsewhere which doesn't use a uuid.

This latter case is quite common - if dhis was the central authority in the
world for assigning metadata (sometimes it feels like it is designed as if
it is :-) life might be better - but the reality is that sometimes there are
other authorities and it is good that there are.  The case we have been
dealing with in Kenya for example - where they have an official Master
Facility List which is responsible for registering facilities and assigning
codes.  In which case we use these official codes in the code field of
orgunit.

>
> Secondly, +1 for an internal routine to assign ids
>

I'm in two minds about this.   For sure it might be better to have generated
codes ou23, de456 etc rather than leave the field blank.  But codes
generally work best when assigned, such as the MFL case above.

>
> Thirdly, please how are you generating the dxf for ihris?
>

iHRIS is doing the generating the dxf for us ie. they are generating HR
dataelement values (number of docs, nurses etc)

Bob

>
> Thanks
>
> Ime
>
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 9/15/11, Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
>
>
> This will also streamline metedata generation because one will only need to
> generate and pass metadata for only de/ou/period.
>
> But I wonder; what's the difference between orgunitId and orgunit in your
> example.
>
>
>
> That's a typo.  Please take a look at the pdf file I sent out earlier this
> week as that is more correct.
>
>
> Also, some elements don't use any categories, but the model references a
> default categorycombo. How will that look in your proposed schema?
>
>
> The default categorycombo is just that - default.  So in the absence of any
> categories the categorycombo is automatically set to default when saving
> datavalues.
>
>
> Would you branch Jo's code in a way we could use easily test yours as a
> module? or...
>
>
> The reading of this format is already implemented in the import/export
> module.  It is tightly coupled with Jo's code in the sense of making use of
> the same element/attribute name strings defined in his beans.  So you can
> already use it by just importing the xml file.  To test you should ideally
> set up some codes in your database.  We should try and do this in the demo
> instance so people can try it there.  Meanwhile I would suggest to test:
>
> (i) pick an orgunit and assign it a code if it does not already have one
> (eg ou1)
> (ii) pick a small dataset and assign it a code (eg dataset1)
> (iii) assign codes to the dataelements within the dataset
> (iv) assign the dataset to the orgunit
>
> Then you should be able to import datavaluesets according to the examples
> given.
>
> Alternatively you can use the existing uuids instead of the codes.
>
> (It might be worth having a startup routine which automatically assigns
> codes based on the existing internal ids where they do not already exist.)
>
> Regards
> Bob
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Ime
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 9/1/11, Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx<http://mc/compose?to=bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >* wrote:
>
> The implication of adding all the above will be that whereas the
> datavalueset above will remain valid (except perhaps shifting to
> storedBy), the following would also be valid:
>
> <dataValueSets orgUnitId="code" dataElementId="internal"
>   <dataValueSet  orgUnit="23" period="201004" storedBy="Bob" >
>     <dataValue dataElement="2" value="4" Sex="1" />
>     <dataValue dataElement="2" value="5" Sex="2"/>
>     <dataValue dataElement="4" value="43" Sex="1" Age="3" />
>     <dataValue dataElement="5" value="44" Sex="1" Age="3" />
>   </dataValueSet>
> </dataValueSets>
>
> I am pretty sure I can implement the above without breaking what is
> currently there.  One possible but minor breaking change I would
> suggest to improving parsing of very large datasets might be to
> abbreviate some well known element names to dv, de and v for
> compactness.
>
>
>