Re: [Gnumed-devel] on meaningfully signing off reviewed items

[J Busser]

At 6:04 PM +0100 1/25/06, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> I still maintain the view that
> we need to safeguard against signed-scope manipulations.

I am having a bit of trouble understanding the manipulation, in terms 
of why it is proposed that some rows in gnumed deserve a record of 
signing (on top of the audit trail that presumably preserves which 
staff altered which rows).

Is it proposed that when the surgery or clinic receives an electronic 
document (or scans paper to create one), that the electronic file is 
not imported into a gnumed row, but instead a link is made to a file 
that sits outside the postgres table? In which case the target of the 
link is at risk of being substituted, without alteration in the link?

In which case I don't see how the "signing" of a row would protect 
against the manipulation. So obviously at issue is something else, if 
within my ability to understand? Maybe to do with document "parts", 
maybe relates to some postings back around Oct 26 on "reviewed status 
tables/views".