[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDi
From: |
Jim Busser |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams |
Date: |
Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:15:01 -0800 |
On 2011-01-04, at 12:10 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>> why, in branded-drugs, do we need UNIQUE (description, preparation) meaning
>> UNIQUE (brand_name, form) ?
>
> Hm, let me think. Likely because there's no more fields
> to sanely be unique on:
>
> description
> preparation
> atc_code
> is_fake
> fk_data_source
> external_code
> external_code_type
>
> One *really* wants to be unique on the name itself but then
> people will complain about not being able to enter
> "Paracetamol" as tablets as well as solution or
> suppositories.
Were we agreed to update column name "description" to "brand_name" and can we
make the table name ref.brand-drugs (in place of current ref.branded-drugs)
because congruency will cut down errors in coding? Or does it make too much
work to adjust the code?
Is the purpose of is_fake to allow pseudo-brands to define pseudo-combo
substances?
I did some experimenting on uniqueness in the Canadian brand names, and even if
I convert
brand_name --> concat (brand_name, strength)
the Canadian brands are still not unique… only 12489 of 12756 become distinct,
because some "generic" companies do not care to make a unique brand name, thus
two or more manufacturers can achieve the same {brand_name, strength}. I would
really much prefer to *not* have to make fake Brand names as concat
(brand_name, FreeDiams unique ID) …
How about
UNIQUE (description, preparation, external_code, external_code_type)
this way, in the absence of {external_code, external_code_type} the check falls
equivalent to the original requirement
UNIQUE (description, preparation)
but in the presence of {external_code, external_code_type} we can enable to
exist a brand name / preparation distinguished by these other attributes.
-- Jim
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, (continued)
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Jim Busser, 2011/01/04
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/04
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Jim Busser, 2011/01/04
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Jim Busser, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/05
- Message not available
- [Gnumed-devel] Re: TODO 0.9: component/substance PRW, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/14
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams,
Jim Busser <=
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Jim Busser, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Jim Busser, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/06
- [Gnumed-devel] Difficulty collapsing drug companies' substances, Jim Busser, 2011/01/04
- [Gnumed-devel] Re: Difficulty collapsing drug companies' substances, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/05
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] GNUmed substance schema was Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/03
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed and FreeDiams, Karsten Hilbert, 2011/01/12