[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries
From: |
Horst Herb |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:16:48 +1100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.3 |
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:58, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> >> - commit+audit limboed 'original' modification
> >
> > Commit, but no audit since this is the first time the record was truky
> > committed.
>
> Oh, you want to apply the limbo flag to semantically new
> records only ? That is to original (not rewritten-to) INSERTs
> only and not to original UPDATEs ? Must have misunderstood
> that somewhere.
Yes. Otherwise the audit trail would be pointless.
The point in having the limbo is to allow the author of a record some time to
finalize his thoughts and to edit his narrative without subjecting him to the
perils of a volatile platform, user interface or connection. But, once a
record exists outside of the limbo, the author should make his mind up
*before* he starts changing records. After all, health records are not
something that is changed on a regular basis, isn't it?
Horst
- [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries, Horst Herb, 2003/01/19
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries, Karsten Hilbert, 2003/01/19
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries, Horst Herb, 2003/01/19
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries, Karsten Hilbert, 2003/01/19
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries, Horst Herb, 2003/01/19
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries, Karsten Hilbert, 2003/01/20
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries,
Horst Herb <=
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries, Karsten Hilbert, 2003/01/20
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries, Hilmar Berger, 2003/01/20
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] limbo table entries, Karsten Hilbert, 2003/01/22