Hi Jim Thanks for the info - I can see the new primary key on datavalue includes [attributeoptioncomboid] which fits perfectly! In fact, Wow! :) This is very cool - you can specify multiple dimensions. Do I understand this correctly - could we specify 'Data-Provider-Type' (e.g. manual, electronic) and 'Data-Provider' (e.g. Outreach-Team, PREHMIS, PREHMIS-Offline, whatever-we-choose) ?
Thanks again, Greg On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Vincent Shaw <vps...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jim > > Thanks for this response - I think this will help us. It's a smart > addition to the functionality. > > As I understand this functionality, we need to understand who is > collecting what data, because it does allow for double counting (if say two > Implementing Partners (IP) capturing the same data at the facility level > because they each want to report their values to the funder) - so one may > not always want to add up the values across the different sources of data. > In Greg's case, where I assume there would not be double counting, one > could add across the sources to get the whole picture. Is that correct? > > > > Best regards, and thanks > > Vincent > > > > *From:* Jim Grace [mailto:jimgr...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 06 March 2014 15:44 PM > *To:* Greg Rowles > *Cc:* DHIS 2 developers; Farai Mutero; Vincent Shaw; Ferdie Botha; Jason > Phillips > *Subject:* Re: [Dhis2-devs] Advocating for changes to Data (values) > Model/Table in DHIS2 > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > There's a new feature in DHIS2 2.14 that you might find useful, called > attribute categories. Previously we used categories only for > disaggregation, but now we allow them to be used as additional, > user-defined "dimensions" of the data. And they're assignable at the data > set level, not by individual data elements. I totally agree that it's best > not to burden the OU hierarchy with things that are not properly OUs. > > > > Please give this a look and see if it could help you -- and give us > feedback either way. > > > > > http://www.dhis2.org/doc/snapshot/en/user/html/dhis2_user_manual_en_full.html#d5e723 > > > > For the future we are also planning to provide ways of grouping these > attribute categories to add more structure to them. > > > > Cheers, > > Jim > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Greg Rowles <greg.row...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Devs > > > > I'd like to advocate for changes to the DHIS2 data model - to cater for > data-provider. > > > > In South Africa we are anticipating a complex environment filled with > electronically generated (aggregate) data going into DHIS2 (e.g. from > medical record systems). In one example in the Western Cape - data enters > the DHIS2 from a patient record system (known as PREHMIS). Alongside this - > data is also entered manually but all at the same facility. To accomplish > this we had to configure a hierarchy structure that catered for: > > > > i) PREHMIS generated data (inserted electronically), > > ii) offline-PREHMIS data (entered manually), > > iii) community-outreach data (entered manually), > > iv) facilities without PREHMIS (entered manually, a combination of i and > ii) and > > v) grand-totals at facility level > > > > We resolved to configure a complex list of OU6 repunits and it seems to be > working so far. My question is - should we not be catering for > data-providers as part of our data model? If we continue to solve > complexity issues through the organisational hierarchy - we're setting > ourselves up for an interesting data management situation. We will be left > with a Cartesian-product of data-provider 'types' all stored inside the > organisationunit table for each and every OU5. Is this something we can > solve with a dataproviderID ? > > > > Right now in South Africa we're working on a data-dictionary and we plan > to cater for data providers (or information systems). Our goal is to create > a national Data-Dictionary that acts as a registry of information systems, > (Master) facility and hierarchy information, (eventuall) a facility > classification registry, and a registry of data elements and indicators. I > believe this supplements the WHO/PEPFAR expectations of a MFL... > > > > I want us to plan forward for a universal data warehouse that caters for > all types of aggregated-data whether they are submitted electronically > or collected manually but solving this with the organisationHierarchy is > going to be messy. Time to start planning our way through this guys...? > > > > > > Best, > > Greg > > > > -- > > Business Intelligence Planner > > *Health Information Systems Programme* > > *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * > > Mobile : 073 246 2992 > Landline: 021 554 3130 > > Fax: 086 733 8432 > > Skype: gregory_rowles > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- Business Intelligence Planner *Health Information Systems Programme* *- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - * Mobile : 073 246 2992 Landline: 021 554 3130 Fax: 086 733 8432 Skype: gregory_rowles
_______________________________________________ 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
