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.
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
-
SPECBASE-19 Broaden LOCATABLE_REF.as_uri() to allow URIs referring to any health data
-
- Closed
-
-
-
- Closed
-
