Re: Relationship (Service?)

[jinny m uppal <juppal01@cs.fiu.edu>]

Peter,
The way I see it, there are two types of relationships we are talking
about: demographic relationships (that can be obtained from the
demographic service) and others (shall we call them clinical?). The
dmeographic relationships would be accesible from the demo-service. It is
the other type of relationships, like physician-isPrimaryCareOf-patient
type relations that we need a relationship service for.
We had a workshop this afternoon at FIU, where I presented some of the
stuff I worked on, which included demographics and relationship service. 
Suffice to say, there was tons of discussion (read arguments/ripping! :-) )
I intend to bring some of the issues raised in the discussion here and
in the demographics thread and hope to have more answers than I do now!
:-( 

Peter, in response to your second paragraph, indeed an Encounter manager
service and RLservice would use relaitonships service to access
relationships.

More later........
Jinny.

 On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Peter Nicklin wrote:

> Konstantin
> 
> Would you use a relationship service for *all* relationships, i.e. 
> family relationships as well as, say, relationships between 
> components of the healthcare enterprise?
> 
> I'm trying to envisage how such a service would be used - say the 
> patient record service and the encounter manager service each using 
> the relationship service for its own purposes?  (This has Roadmap 
> implications).
> 
> I won't be back in the office until Friday.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Peter
> 
>  
> > I think we do need a relationship service. It will hide all specifics of
> > finding relationships in hospital environment. The service will perform role of
> > Mediator from Mediator pattern (The Gang of Four, 1995).
> > I think you and I agree on the main points. I just come into the discussion
> > more from the perspective of healthcare enterprise design than from the
> > perspective of data modeling in healthcare.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > By making the relationship a sub-type of the Person (or Subject) 
> > > property of one of the members of the relationship we also, by 
> > > implication, place that relationship within the record of that Person 
> > > (e.g. patient record).  Therefore, i would tend to agree with 
> > > Konstantin, but not for quite the same reason, that we do not need a 
> > > relationships server.  Instead, I think we need a consistent model of 
> > > relationships and these should be stored in the relevant place.  So a 
> > > parent/child relationship would be stored in the patient record, a 
> > > provider/patient relationship would be stored in an encounter manager 
> > > and a provider/employee relationship would be stored in an enterprise 
> > > manager.
> > 
> > 
> > For details regarding list subscriptions and the list archive see:
> > http://cadse.cs.fiu.edu/omg/halfem-rfi/
> > 
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Peter Nicklin, NHS IMC,
> c/o CHSR, 21 Claremont Place, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AA, UK
> Tel: +44 191 230 3614   Fax: +44 191 230 4563  Mobile: +44 831 198319
> X400: imc/G=Peter/S=Nicklin/O=nhs_imc/OU=cbs@mhs.attmail.com
> For details regarding list subscriptions and the list archive see:
> http://cadse.cs.fiu.edu/omg/halfem-rfi/
> 

For details regarding list subscriptions and the list archive see:
http://cadse.cs.fiu.edu/omg/halfem-rfi/