2010/3/4 Bob Jolliffe <bobjolli...@gmail.com> > 2010/3/4 Lars Helge Øverland <larshe...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > 2010/3/4 Bob Jolliffe <bobjolli...@gmail.com> > >> > >> 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...?
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
