Sharing Pivot Table details between DHIS instances

In DHIS2 can’t “global” be set as OUlevel zero (above national/OU1)? If multiple countries were to be integrated into one instance it would require all existing OUlevels to be incremented unless level zero could be accommodated with some dynamic settings for different ‘branches’ (assuming all country instances share a common and proportionate number of vertical levels).

The other option is going a much more sophisticated route and virtualizing a DHIS2 instance from multiple ‘live’ instances but that would be a whole new kind of approach - probably unnecessarily complex …

···

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

I guess I am talking about somehow parametrizing the PT favorites - and being able to share the parametrizable favorites between DHIS2 instances.


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

While I agree on the recommendation of a common meta-data repository for Data Elements and Indicators, this obviously does not help in the least when it comes to OrgUnits in different countries. We have OrgUnit as a parameter in the “ordinary” reports, but not for pivot tables (periods are of course already standardised across most countries - those that use ISO calendars).

I suppose the question highlights the increasing use of more flexible PT for reporting in addition to (or completely replacing) conventional reports. Does it make sense to think of an App that makes it easy to pass parameters (OU, periods) to ready-made pivot layouts - or would that really just be recreating the PT GUI? Is the API already capable of handling this?

Knut


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Greg Rowles greg.rowles@gmail.com wrote:

Hi, Also agree with the abovementioned. We’re working towards a “master” data-dictionary for indicator and data element definitions to ensure alignment and standardization here in South Africa. It might be good to begin assessing alignment possibilities starting with indicators as they determine which elements get collected…

Regards,

Greg


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Lars Helge Øverland larshelge@gmail.com wrote:

Lars

Hi, agree with Jason. On an additional note, if the meta-data (data elements in particular) actually are consistent across several instances it might be a good effort to standardize the UID, will be useful if you want to do comparative analysis across countries at a later stage.


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Business Intelligence Planner

Health Information Systems Programme

**- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - **

Mobile : 073 246 2992
Landline: 021 554 3130
Fax: 086 733 8432
Skype: gregory_rowles

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Jason Pickering jason.p.pickering@gmail.com wrote:

I would think the best way to go about this would be to have a common meta-data repository. It would seem to be quite a bit of effort to try and map metadata definitions between different instances, but the usual approach here would be to have a “master” instance, which other “slave” instances would draw their metadata from. In this case, the exchange of pivots/reports would be possible, but very troublesome otherwise.

It is certainly possible, but building the transformation would be one more piece to maintain and would be quite fragile, as changes on either side would break it.

Best regards,

Jason


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Laura E. Lincks laura.lincks@icap.columbia.edu wrote:

We have individual DHIS instances installed for individual countries. Many configuration needs are similar across countries including the set up of many reports. Is it possible to take a pivot table definition set up in one country and export that definition to another country’s DHIS instance? I see that details can be exported for a pivot table using Meta-Data Export but it of course contains unique identifiers for that country which will not apply in another country’s instance. Is there a way to query the data from the backend, create an output script, changing the unique IDs to the new country’s respective IDs and then insert the data in the new country’s database? It may be more trouble doing it that way than simply manually creating the pivot table structures in the new country, but I thought I’d ask if anyone has had success doing it in a more automated fashion.

Laura E. Lincks

Database
Developer
ICAP -
Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health
60 Haven Ave, Floor B1

New York, NY 10032
Tel: 212 304 7132


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Hi Greg,

In DHIS2, the number of levels are deduced from the hierarchy, so there are no fixed levels. It’s quite feasible to add a new root node “above” the national level (one could of course also think of regional nodes below the “global” level, e.g. Africa, Europe etc).

If you mean that a multinational organization can set up a “global” metadata repository with orgunits from all their countries, that is certainly possible - it would in effect be using DHIS2 as a multinational “Master Facility Registry”. DHIS2 could serve this function - and the same “global” instance could also house all data element and indicator definitions. This would then be a real metadata repository, in other words a mechanism for sharing CONTENT which could even host HTML Standard Report templates (though probably not yet “shared and reusable PT/Chart/GIS/Dashboard templates”).

I guess we currently would require login, though there is usually little reason such metadata could not be shared publicly for anyone on the internet to access - in fact I think we really should technically facilitate and even actively promote the sharing of metadata openly, for the benefit of all. This is a crucial step towards the vision of OpenData [0] (which of course is a much larger undertaking, and is much less straightforward as it can involve sensitive data, in particular when you move beyond aggregate figures).

More generally, there have been some efforts at the international level (not involving DHIS2) towards establishing registries for health facilities internationally, though I think few of them are very active. A challenge is that it takes committment from each country to keep it up-to-date (though crowd-sourcing efforts such as OpenStreetMap also seem to have quite a few facilities). Technically, there should not be major challenges to setting it up, and if DHIS2 were to be the platform it would certainly be easy to link with national DHIS2 instances. We have also already linked DHIS2 to other systems such as the Kenyan Master Health Facility List [1] and the Rwanda Health Facility Registry [2]. DHIS2 has also implemented the FRED API [3], which is meant to facilitate such interoperability.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data and https://opendata.go.ke/

[1] http://www.ehealth.or.ke/facilities/

[2] https://confluence.dimagi.com/display/facilityregistry/Facilities+Registry

[3] http://hingx.org/Share/Details/1319

···

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:15 AM, greg.rowles@gmail.com greg.rowles@gmail.com wrote:

In DHIS2 can’t “global” be set as OUlevel zero (above national/OU1)? If multiple countries were to be integrated into one instance it would require all existing OUlevels to be incremented unless level zero could be accommodated with some dynamic settings for different ‘branches’ (assuming all country instances share a common and proportionate number of vertical levels).

The other option is going a much more sophisticated route and virtualizing a DHIS2 instance from multiple ‘live’ instances but that would be a whole new kind of approach - probably unnecessarily complex …

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: “Knut Staring” knutst@gmail.com
To: “Greg Rowles” greg.rowles@gmail.com

Cc: “Lars Helge Øverland” larshelge@gmail.com, “DHIS Users” dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Subject: [Dhis2-users] Sharing Pivot Table details between DHIS instances
Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 04:47

And more generally we could then have objects that are more akin to meta-meta-data:
Parametrizable map, chart and PT favorites that include legend sets, as well as Dashboards.

I guess supporting Relative periods and User Org Unit has been our first stab at this.


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

I guess I am talking about somehow parametrizing the PT favorites - and being able to share the parametrizable favorites between DHIS2 instances.


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

While I agree on the recommendation of a common meta-data repository for Data Elements and Indicators, this obviously does not help in the least when it comes to OrgUnits in different countries. We have OrgUnit as a parameter in the “ordinary” reports, but not for pivot tables (periods are of course already standardised across most countries - those that use ISO calendars).

I suppose the question highlights the increasing use of more flexible PT for reporting in addition to (or completely replacing) conventional reports. Does it make sense to think of an App that makes it easy to pass parameters (OU, periods) to ready-made pivot layouts - or would that really just be recreating the PT GUI? Is the API already capable of handling this?

Knut


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Greg Rowles greg.rowles@gmail.com wrote:

Hi, Also agree with the abovementioned. We’re working towards a “master” data-dictionary for indicator and data element definitions to ensure alignment and standardization here in South Africa. It might be good to begin assessing alignment possibilities starting with indicators as they determine which elements get collected…

Regards,

Greg


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Lars Helge Øverland larshelge@gmail.com wrote:

Lars

Hi, agree with Jason. On an additional note, if the meta-data (data elements in particular) actually are consistent across several instances it might be a good effort to standardize the UID, will be useful if you want to do comparative analysis across countries at a later stage.


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Business Intelligence Planner

Health Information Systems Programme

**- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - **

Mobile : 073 246 2992
Landline: 021 554 3130
Fax: 086 733 8432
Skype: gregory_rowles

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Jason Pickering jason.p.pickering@gmail.com wrote:

I would think the best way to go about this would be to have a common meta-data repository. It would seem to be quite a bit of effort to try and map metadata definitions between different instances, but the usual approach here would be to have a “master” instance, which other “slave” instances would draw their metadata from. In this case, the exchange of pivots/reports would be possible, but very troublesome otherwise.

It is certainly possible, but building the transformation would be one more piece to maintain and would be quite fragile, as changes on either side would break it.

Best regards,

Jason


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Laura E. Lincks laura.lincks@icap.columbia.edu wrote:

We have individual DHIS instances installed for individual countries. Many configuration needs are similar across countries including the set up of many reports. Is it possible to take a pivot table definition set up in one country and export that definition to another country’s DHIS instance? I see that details can be exported for a pivot table using Meta-Data Export but it of course contains unique identifiers for that country which will not apply in another country’s instance. Is there a way to query the data from the backend, create an output script, changing the unique IDs to the new country’s respective IDs and then insert the data in the new country’s database? It may be more trouble doing it that way than simply manually creating the pivot table structures in the new country, but I thought I’d ask if anyone has had success doing it in a more automated fashion.

Laura E. Lincks

Database Developer
ICAP - Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health
60 Haven Ave, Floor B1

New York, NY 10032
Tel: 212 304 7132


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

A multinational organisation should almost certainly maintain a registry of all their sites if they are to use dhis2 efficiently. And a standardized metadata repository where possible. For smaller setups this could lean towards a single global instance. For others a separation between registry and data warehouse(s).

Designing the same reports across many countries does sound onerous.

Opinion: I think uids are a little too “in-house” to provide the best means of sharing/linking data between distinct systems. If you are curating a collection then you should probably also curate coded identifiers.

···

On 20 June 2014 07:59, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Greg,

In DHIS2, the number of levels are deduced from the hierarchy, so there are no fixed levels. It’s quite feasible to add a new root node “above” the national level (one could of course also think of regional nodes below the “global” level, e.g. Africa, Europe etc).

If you mean that a multinational organization can set up a “global” metadata repository with orgunits from all their countries, that is certainly possible - it would in effect be using DHIS2 as a multinational “Master Facility Registry”. DHIS2 could serve this function - and the same “global” instance could also house all data element and indicator definitions. This would then be a real metadata repository, in other words a mechanism for sharing CONTENT which could even host HTML Standard Report templates (though probably not yet “shared and reusable PT/Chart/GIS/Dashboard templates”).

I guess we currently would require login, though there is usually little reason such metadata could not be shared publicly for anyone on the internet to access - in fact I think we really should technically facilitate and even actively promote the sharing of metadata openly, for the benefit of all. This is a crucial step towards the vision of OpenData [0] (which of course is a much larger undertaking, and is much less straightforward as it can involve sensitive data, in particular when you move beyond aggregate figures).

More generally, there have been some efforts at the international level (not involving DHIS2) towards establishing registries for health facilities internationally, though I think few of them are very active. A challenge is that it takes committment from each country to keep it up-to-date (though crowd-sourcing efforts such as OpenStreetMap also seem to have quite a few facilities). Technically, there should not be major challenges to setting it up, and if DHIS2 were to be the platform it would certainly be easy to link with national DHIS2 instances. We have also already linked DHIS2 to other systems such as the Kenyan Master Health Facility List [1] and the Rwanda Health Facility Registry [2]. DHIS2 has also implemented the FRED API [3], which is meant to facilitate such interoperability.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data and https://opendata.go.ke/

[1] http://www.ehealth.or.ke/facilities/

[2] https://confluence.dimagi.com/display/facilityregistry/Facilities+Registry

[3] http://hingx.org/Share/Details/1319


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:15 AM, greg.rowles@gmail.com greg.rowles@gmail.com wrote:

In DHIS2 can’t “global” be set as OUlevel zero (above national/OU1)? If multiple countries were to be integrated into one instance it would require all existing OUlevels to be incremented unless level zero could be accommodated with some dynamic settings for different ‘branches’ (assuming all country instances share a common and proportionate number of vertical levels).

The other option is going a much more sophisticated route and virtualizing a DHIS2 instance from multiple ‘live’ instances but that would be a whole new kind of approach - probably unnecessarily complex …

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: “Knut Staring” knutst@gmail.com
To: “Greg Rowles” greg.rowles@gmail.com

Cc: “Lars Helge Øverland” larshelge@gmail.com, “DHIS Users” dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Subject: [Dhis2-users] Sharing Pivot Table details between DHIS instances
Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 04:47

And more generally we could then have objects that are more akin to meta-meta-data:
Parametrizable map, chart and PT favorites that include legend sets, as well as Dashboards.

I guess supporting Relative periods and User Org Unit has been our first stab at this.


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

I guess I am talking about somehow parametrizing the PT favorites - and being able to share the parametrizable favorites between DHIS2 instances.


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

While I agree on the recommendation of a common meta-data repository for Data Elements and Indicators, this obviously does not help in the least when it comes to OrgUnits in different countries. We have OrgUnit as a parameter in the “ordinary” reports, but not for pivot tables (periods are of course already standardised across most countries - those that use ISO calendars).

I suppose the question highlights the increasing use of more flexible PT for reporting in addition to (or completely replacing) conventional reports. Does it make sense to think of an App that makes it easy to pass parameters (OU, periods) to ready-made pivot layouts - or would that really just be recreating the PT GUI? Is the API already capable of handling this?

Knut


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Greg Rowles greg.rowles@gmail.com wrote:

Hi, Also agree with the abovementioned. We’re working towards a “master” data-dictionary for indicator and data element definitions to ensure alignment and standardization here in South Africa. It might be good to begin assessing alignment possibilities starting with indicators as they determine which elements get collected…

Regards,

Greg


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Lars Helge Øverland larshelge@gmail.com wrote:

Lars

Hi, agree with Jason. On an additional note, if the meta-data (data elements in particular) actually are consistent across several instances it might be a good effort to standardize the UID, will be useful if you want to do comparative analysis across countries at a later stage.


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Business Intelligence Planner

Health Information Systems Programme

**- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - **

Mobile : 073 246 2992
Landline: 021 554 3130
Fax: 086 733 8432

Skype: gregory_rowles

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Jason Pickering jason.p.pickering@gmail.com wrote:

I would think the best way to go about this would be to have a common meta-data repository. It would seem to be quite a bit of effort to try and map metadata definitions between different instances, but the usual approach here would be to have a “master” instance, which other “slave” instances would draw their metadata from. In this case, the exchange of pivots/reports would be possible, but very troublesome otherwise.

It is certainly possible, but building the transformation would be one more piece to maintain and would be quite fragile, as changes on either side would break it.

Best regards,

Jason


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Laura E. Lincks laura.lincks@icap.columbia.edu wrote:

We have individual DHIS instances installed for individual countries. Many configuration needs are similar across countries including the set up of many reports. Is it possible to take a pivot table definition set up in one country and export that definition to another country’s DHIS instance? I see that details can be exported for a pivot table using Meta-Data Export but it of course contains unique identifiers for that country which will not apply in another country’s instance. Is there a way to query the data from the backend, create an output script, changing the unique IDs to the new country’s respective IDs and then insert the data in the new country’s database? It may be more trouble doing it that way than simply manually creating the pivot table structures in the new country, but I thought I’d ask if anyone has had success doing it in a more automated fashion.

Laura E. Lincks

Database Developer
ICAP - Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health
60 Haven Ave, Floor B1

New York, NY 10032
Tel: 212 304 7132


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Hi Bob+Knut,

Yip, we agreed on a dual coding system for orgunits a few weeks back: [OrgUnitCode] to support data collection activities (in mobile, paper & electronic registers) and [UID] for data warehousing tasks (although UIDs could be used to support either).

With regards to Indicators and Data Elements - UIDs make sense for standardization between EHRs, Mobile systems, DHIS2 instances and other types of systems. Unfortunately disaggregation has created a new challenge for standardization/alignment but I believe any “global” repository could cater for this by creating a “library” of non-disaggregated indicator & element definitions. That way mappings could be developed to support the numerous styles of disaggregations out there…

Just to be clear - a “global” metadata repository is to act only as a reference point for data-definitions & orgunit-lists or does it also exist as a type of data-warehouse to store aggregated data?

Greg

···

A multinational organisation should almost certainly maintain a registry of all their sites if they are to use dhis2 efficiently. And a standardized metadata repository where possible. For smaller setups this could lean towards a single global instance. For others a separation between registry and data warehouse(s).

Designing the same reports across many countries does sound onerous.

Opinion: I think uids are a little too “in-house” to provide the best means of sharing/linking data between distinct systems. If you are curating a collection then you should probably also curate coded identifiers.

Business Intelligence Planner

Health Information Systems Programme

**- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - **

Mobile : 073 246 2992
Landline: 021 554 3130
Fax: 086 733 8432
Skype: gregory_rowles

On 20 June 2014 07:59, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Greg,

In DHIS2, the number of levels are deduced from the hierarchy, so there are no fixed levels. It’s quite feasible to add a new root node “above” the national level (one could of course also think of regional nodes below the “global” level, e.g. Africa, Europe etc).

If you mean that a multinational organization can set up a “global” metadata repository with orgunits from all their countries, that is certainly possible - it would in effect be using DHIS2 as a multinational “Master Facility Registry”. DHIS2 could serve this function - and the same “global” instance could also house all data element and indicator definitions. This would then be a real metadata repository, in other words a mechanism for sharing CONTENT which could even host HTML Standard Report templates (though probably not yet “shared and reusable PT/Chart/GIS/Dashboard templates”).

I guess we currently would require login, though there is usually little reason such metadata could not be shared publicly for anyone on the internet to access - in fact I think we really should technically facilitate and even actively promote the sharing of metadata openly, for the benefit of all. This is a crucial step towards the vision of OpenData [0] (which of course is a much larger undertaking, and is much less straightforward as it can involve sensitive data, in particular when you move beyond aggregate figures).

More generally, there have been some efforts at the international level (not involving DHIS2) towards establishing registries for health facilities internationally, though I think few of them are very active. A challenge is that it takes committment from each country to keep it up-to-date (though crowd-sourcing efforts such as OpenStreetMap also seem to have quite a few facilities). Technically, there should not be major challenges to setting it up, and if DHIS2 were to be the platform it would certainly be easy to link with national DHIS2 instances. We have also already linked DHIS2 to other systems such as the Kenyan Master Health Facility List [1] and the Rwanda Health Facility Registry [2]. DHIS2 has also implemented the FRED API [3], which is meant to facilitate such interoperability.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data and https://opendata.go.ke/

[1] http://www.ehealth.or.ke/facilities/

[2] https://confluence.dimagi.com/display/facilityregistry/Facilities+Registry

[3] http://hingx.org/Share/Details/1319


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:15 AM, greg.rowles@gmail.com greg.rowles@gmail.com wrote:

In DHIS2 can’t “global” be set as OUlevel zero (above national/OU1)? If multiple countries were to be integrated into one instance it would require all existing OUlevels to be incremented unless level zero could be accommodated with some dynamic settings for different ‘branches’ (assuming all country instances share a common and proportionate number of vertical levels).

The other option is going a much more sophisticated route and virtualizing a DHIS2 instance from multiple ‘live’ instances but that would be a whole new kind of approach - probably unnecessarily complex …

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: “Knut Staring” knutst@gmail.com
To: “Greg Rowles” greg.rowles@gmail.com

Cc: “Lars Helge Øverland” larshelge@gmail.com, “DHIS Users” dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Subject: [Dhis2-users] Sharing Pivot Table details between DHIS instances
Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 04:47

And more generally we could then have objects that are more akin to meta-meta-data:
Parametrizable map, chart and PT favorites that include legend sets, as well as Dashboards.

I guess supporting Relative periods and User Org Unit has been our first stab at this.


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

I guess I am talking about somehow parametrizing the PT favorites - and being able to share the parametrizable favorites between DHIS2 instances.


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Knut Staring knutst@gmail.com wrote:

While I agree on the recommendation of a common meta-data repository for Data Elements and Indicators, this obviously does not help in the least when it comes to OrgUnits in different countries. We have OrgUnit as a parameter in the “ordinary” reports, but not for pivot tables (periods are of course already standardised across most countries - those that use ISO calendars).

I suppose the question highlights the increasing use of more flexible PT for reporting in addition to (or completely replacing) conventional reports. Does it make sense to think of an App that makes it easy to pass parameters (OU, periods) to ready-made pivot layouts - or would that really just be recreating the PT GUI? Is the API already capable of handling this?

Knut


Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Greg Rowles greg.rowles@gmail.com wrote:

Hi, Also agree with the abovementioned. We’re working towards a “master” data-dictionary for indicator and data element definitions to ensure alignment and standardization here in South Africa. It might be good to begin assessing alignment possibilities starting with indicators as they determine which elements get collected…

Regards,

Greg


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Knut Staring

Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo

+4791880522

http://dhis2.org

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Lars Helge Øverland larshelge@gmail.com wrote:

Lars

Hi, agree with Jason. On an additional note, if the meta-data (data elements in particular) actually are consistent across several instances it might be a good effort to standardize the UID, will be useful if you want to do comparative analysis across countries at a later stage.


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Business Intelligence Planner

Health Information Systems Programme

**- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - - - ****- - - - - **

Mobile : 073 246 2992
Landline: 021 554 3130
Fax: 086 733 8432

Skype: gregory_rowles

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Jason Pickering jason.p.pickering@gmail.com wrote:

I would think the best way to go about this would be to have a common meta-data repository. It would seem to be quite a bit of effort to try and map metadata definitions between different instances, but the usual approach here would be to have a “master” instance, which other “slave” instances would draw their metadata from. In this case, the exchange of pivots/reports would be possible, but very troublesome otherwise.

It is certainly possible, but building the transformation would be one more piece to maintain and would be quite fragile, as changes on either side would break it.

Best regards,

Jason


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Laura E. Lincks laura.lincks@icap.columbia.edu wrote:

We have individual DHIS instances installed for individual countries. Many configuration needs are similar across countries including the set up of many reports. Is it possible to take a pivot table definition set up in one country and export that definition to another country’s DHIS instance? I see that details can be exported for a pivot table using Meta-Data Export but it of course contains unique identifiers for that country which will not apply in another country’s instance. Is there a way to query the data from the backend, create an output script, changing the unique IDs to the new country’s respective IDs and then insert the data in the new country’s database? It may be more trouble doing it that way than simply manually creating the pivot table structures in the new country, but I thought I’d ask if anyone has had success doing it in a more automated fashion.

Laura E. Lincks

Database Developer
ICAP - Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health
60 Haven Ave, Floor B1

New York, NY 10032
Tel: 212 304 7132


Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net

Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users

More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Hi Bob+Knut,

Yip, we agreed on a dual coding system for orgunits a few weeks back:
[OrgUnitCode] to support data collection activities (in mobile, paper &
electronic registers) and [UID] for data warehousing tasks (although UIDs
could be used to support either).

With regards to Indicators and Data Elements - UIDs make sense for
standardization between EHRs, Mobile systems, DHIS2 instances and other
types of systems. Unfortunately disaggregation has created a new challenge
for standardization/alignment but I believe any "global" repository could
cater for this by creating a "library" of non-disaggregated indicator &
element definitions. That way mappings could be developed to support the
numerous styles of disaggregations out there...

Just to be clear - a "global" metadata repository is to act only as a
reference point for data-definitions & orgunit-lists or does it also exist
as a type of data-warehouse to store aggregated data?

I think these are different responsibilities ie. you could setup a metadata
repository/registry and start storing data into it but you lose then the
sense of your metadata registry. What you have instead (which is also a
valid concept) is the plainer notion of an authoritative source. So for
example you might nominate the routine hmis system in a country as the
authoritative source of orgunit information because you know the collection
of routine data provides the best governance mechanism for your orgunit
data. I see this as a slightly different idea to a registry, though
related..

···

On 20 June 2014 10:11, Greg Rowles <greg.rowles@gmail.com> wrote:

Greg

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com> > wrote:

A multinational organisation should almost certainly maintain a registry
of all *their* sites if they are to use dhis2 efficiently. And a
standardized metadata repository where possible. For smaller setups this
could lean towards a single global instance. For others a separation
between registry and data warehouse(s).

Designing the same reports across many countries does sound onerous.

Opinion: I think uids are a little too "in-house" to provide the best
means of sharing/linking data between distinct systems. If you are
curating a collection then you should probably also curate coded
identifiers.

On 20 June 2014 07:59, Knut Staring <knutst@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Greg,

In DHIS2, the number of levels are deduced from the hierarchy, so there
are no fixed levels. It's quite feasible to add a new root node "above" the
national level (one could of course also think of regional nodes below the
"global" level, e.g. Africa, Europe etc).

If you mean that a multinational organization can set up a "global"
metadata repository with orgunits from all their countries, that is
certainly possible - it would in effect be using DHIS2 as a multinational
"Master Facility Registry". DHIS2 could serve this function - and the same
"global" instance could also house all data element and indicator
definitions. This would then be a real metadata repository, in other words
a mechanism for sharing CONTENT which could even host HTML Standard Report
templates (though probably not yet "shared and reusable
PT/Chart/GIS/Dashboard templates").

I guess we currently would require login, though there is usually little
reason such metadata could not be shared publicly for anyone on the
internet to access - in fact I think we really should technically
facilitate and even actively promote the sharing of metadata openly, for
the benefit of all. This is a crucial step towards the vision of OpenData
[0] (which of course is a much larger undertaking, and is much less
straightforward as it can involve sensitive data, in particular when you
move beyond aggregate figures).

More generally, there have been some efforts at the international level
(not involving DHIS2) towards establishing registries for health facilities
internationally, though I think few of them are very active. A challenge is
that it takes committment from each country to keep it up-to-date (though
crowd-sourcing efforts such as OpenStreetMap also seem to have quite a few
facilities). Technically, there should not be major challenges to setting
it up, and if DHIS2 were to be the platform it would certainly be easy to
link with national DHIS2 instances. We have also already linked DHIS2 to
other systems such as the Kenyan Master Health Facility List [1] and the
Rwanda Health Facility Registry [2]. DHIS2 has also implemented the FRED
API [3], which is meant to facilitate such interoperability.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data and https://opendata.go.ke/
[1] http://www.ehealth.or.ke/facilities/
[2]
https://confluence.dimagi.com/display/facilityregistry/Facilities+Registry
[3] http://hingx.org/Share/Details/1319

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 7:15 AM, greg.rowles@gmail.com < >>> greg.rowles@gmail.com> wrote:

In DHIS2 can't "global" be set as OUlevel zero (above national/OU1)?
If multiple countries were to be integrated into one instance it would
require all existing OUlevels to be incremented unless level zero could be
accommodated with some dynamic settings for different 'branches' (assuming
all country instances share a common and proportionate number of vertical
levels).
The other option is going a much more sophisticated route and
virtualizing a DHIS2 instance from multiple 'live' instances but that would
be a whole new kind of approach - probably unnecessarily complex ...

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: "Knut Staring" <knutst@gmail.com>
To: "Greg Rowles" <greg.rowles@gmail.com>
Cc: "Lars Helge Øverland" <larshelge@gmail.com>, "DHIS Users" <
dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net>
Subject: [Dhis2-users] Sharing Pivot Table details between DHIS
instances
Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 04:47

And more generally we could then have objects that are more akin to
meta-meta-data:
Parametrizable map, chart and PT favorites that include legend sets, as
well as Dashboards.

I guess supporting Relative periods and User Org Unit has been our
first stab at this.

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Knut Staring <knutst@gmail.com> wrote:

I guess I am talking about somehow parametrizing the PT favorites -
and being able to share the parametrizable favorites between DHIS2
instances.

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Knut Staring <knutst@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

While I agree on the recommendation of a common meta-data
repository for Data Elements and Indicators, this obviously does not help
in the least when it comes to OrgUnits in different countries. We have
OrgUnit as a parameter in the "ordinary" reports, but not for pivot tables
(periods are of course already standardised across most countries - those
that use ISO calendars).

I suppose the question highlights the increasing use of more flexible
PT for reporting in addition to (or completely replacing) conventional
reports. Does it make sense to think of an App that makes it easy to pass
parameters (OU, periods) to ready-made pivot layouts - or would that really
just be recreating the PT GUI? Is the API already capable of handling this?

Knut

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Greg Rowles <greg.rowles@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:

Hi, Also agree with the abovementioned. We're working towards a
"master" data-dictionary for indicator and data element definitions to
ensure alignment and standardization here in South Africa. It might be good
to begin assessing alignment possibilities starting with indicators as they
determine which elements get collected...

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Lars Helge Øverland < >>>>>>> larshelge@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, agree with Jason. On an additional note, if the meta-data (data
elements in particular) actually are consistent across several instances it
might be a good effort to standardize the UID, will be useful if you want
to do comparative analysis across countries at a later stage.

Lars

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Jason Pickering < >>>>>>>> jason.p.pickering@gmail.com> wrote:

I would think the best way to go about this would be to have a
common meta-data repository. It would seem to be quite a bit of effort to
try and map metadata definitions between different instances, but the usual
approach here would be to have a "master" instance, which other "slave"
instances would draw their metadata from. In this case, the exchange of
pivots/reports would be possible, but very troublesome otherwise.

It is certainly possible, but building the transformation would be
one more piece to maintain and would be quite fragile, as changes on either
side would break it.

Best regards,
Jason

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Laura E. Lincks < >>>>>>>>> laura.lincks@icap.columbia.edu> wrote:

We have individual DHIS instances installed for individual
countries. Many configuration needs are similar across countries including
the set up of many reports. Is it possible to take a pivot table definition
set up in one country and export that definition to another country's DHIS
instance? I see that details can be exported for a pivot table using
Meta-Data Export but it of course contains unique identifiers for that
country which will not apply in another country's instance. Is there a way
to query the data from the backend, create an output script, changing the
unique IDs to the new country's respective IDs and then insert the data in
the new country's database? It may be more trouble doing it that way than
simply manually creating the pivot table structures in the new country, but
I thought I'd ask if anyone has had success doing it in a more automated
fashion.

--

*Laura E. Lincks*
Database Developer
ICAP - Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health
60 Haven Ave, Floor B1
New York, NY 10032
Tel: 212 304 7132

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

--

Business Intelligence Planner
*Health Information Systems Programme*
*- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **-
- - - - *
Mobile : 073 246 2992
Landline: 021 554 3130
Fax: 086 733 8432
Skype: gregory_rowles

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

--
Knut Staring
Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo
+4791880522
http://dhis2.org

--
Knut Staring
Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo
+4791880522
http://dhis2.org

--
Knut Staring
Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo
+4791880522
http://dhis2.org

--
Knut Staring
Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo
+4791880522
http://dhis2.org

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
Post to : dhis2-users@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-users
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

--

Business Intelligence Planner
*Health Information Systems Programme*
*- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - -
- *
Mobile : 073 246 2992
Landline: 021 554 3130
Fax: 086 733 8432
Skype: gregory_rowles