You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Multiple identical partij identificatoren (i.e. for two resources, the values for codeObjecttype, codeSoortObjectId, objectId, and codeRegister are the same)
To match multiple identical identificatoren to the same partij
The proposal is to guard against both: partij identificatoren should be unique for the fields mentioned above and thus, by implication, they can only point to a single Partij.
Toegevoegde waarde / Added value
The proximate pain point here is that, when filtering all Partij resources on an identificator, clients have to handle the case of >1 Partijen for a supposedly unique identificator, with no obvious resolution strategy.
That is, when filtering on a BSN partij identificator (leaving aside the issue of divergent schemes to refer to a BSN, which #233 would address), it is currently possible to get several Partij resources for a single BSN, which should be unique (as arguably all identificatoren are). It is not clear which Partij to select. Even if clients have a consistent way of identifying the canonical Partij from several options for a single client (e.g. by maintaining an internal mapping to Partij.uuid), this means that several different clients may reference different Partij when in fact they intend to converge on the same object.
The value of an identificator should be that it actually functions as a unique identifier, both for developer experience (no difficult-to-resolve edge-cases to handle), but it would also improve the data quality (less chance of spurious duplicates). This would be complementary to #233 .
Aanvullende opmerkingen / Additional context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Besproken of Contactpersoon wel een instantie moet zijn van Partij. Omdat Contactpersoon een instantie is van een Partij maar ook een Persoon en/of zelfs Contactpersoon kan zijn voor meerdere organisaties, zal zijn/haar BSN meerdere keren voorkomen waarschijnlijk?
Besproken in overleg van 24/9: we gaan deze ticket sluiten omdat de oplossing hier in ieder geval al botst met het Contactpersoon probleem genoemd door @joeribekker#241 (comment) maar ook omdat er eveneens conensus lijkt te bestaan dat organisaties met hetzelfde KvK nummer maar verschillende vestigingsnummers als aparte Partijen beschouwd dienen te worden (en daarmee dus een KvK nummer aan meerdere partijen gekoppeld kan worden).
Het onderliggende probleem ("Hoe convergeren verschillende systemen op dezelfde Partij, om te voorkomen dat er aparte partijen bestaan voor wat in feite dezelfde partijen zijn?") zal apart behandeld worden in de groep.
Thema / Theme
Klantinteracties API
Omschrijving / Description
It is currently possible to create:
codeObjecttype
,codeSoortObjectId
,objectId
, andcodeRegister
are the same)The proposal is to guard against both: partij identificatoren should be unique for the fields mentioned above and thus, by implication, they can only point to a single Partij.
Toegevoegde waarde / Added value
The proximate pain point here is that, when filtering all
Partij
resources on an identificator, clients have to handle the case of>1 Partijen for a supposedly unique identificator
, with no obvious resolution strategy.That is, when filtering on a BSN partij identificator (leaving aside the issue of divergent schemes to refer to a BSN, which #233 would address), it is currently possible to get several
Partij
resources for a single BSN, which should be unique (as arguably all identificatoren are). It is not clear whichPartij
to select. Even if clients have a consistent way of identifying the canonical Partij from several options for a single client (e.g. by maintaining an internal mapping toPartij.uuid
), this means that several different clients may reference differentPartij
when in fact they intend to converge on the same object.The value of an identificator should be that it actually functions as a unique identifier, both for developer experience (no difficult-to-resolve edge-cases to handle), but it would also improve the data quality (less chance of spurious duplicates). This would be complementary to #233 .
Aanvullende opmerkingen / Additional context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: