Uploaded image for project: 'Specification PR tracker'
  1. Specification PR tracker
  2. SPECPR-104

PARTY.reverse_relationships should better be a Set<PARTY_REF> ?

    Details

    • Type: Problem Report
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor
    • Resolution: Done
    • Affects versions: RM Release 1.0.3
    • Fix versions: RM Release 1.0.4
    • Components: RM Demographic model
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Would that be better if PARTY.reverse_relationships would be a Set<PARTY_REF> instead of Set<LOCATABLE_REF> ?
      Relationships as defined in specifications are always going to be between PARTY objects; furthermore 'path' property of LOCATABLE_REF will never be used in this context.
      In the reverse_relationship case the actual kind of reference should be via the use of OBJECT_VERSION_IDs to denote the exact Version of the source PARTY, rather than HIER_OBJECT_IDs.

        Attachments

          Issue links

          PR is addressed in

          Change Request - A CR documents proposed and implemented changes SPECBASE-19 Broaden LOCATABLE_REF.as_uri() to allow URIs referring to any health data

          • Minor - Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present.
          • Closed

          Change Request - A CR documents proposed and implemented changes SPECRM-75 Fix description of PARTY.relationships

          • Minor - Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present.
          • Closed

            Activity

              People

              • Assignee:
                thomas.beale Thomas Beale
                Reporter:
                sebastian_iancu Sebastian Iancu
                Acceptance:
                Bjørn Næss, Boštjan Lah, Diego Bosca, Ian McNicoll, Thomas Beale
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                5 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved: