# RESOURCE\_DESCRIPTION\_ITEM
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/resource-description-item/16675
**Category:** Implementers (archive)
**Created:** [28 June 2008 14:08 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/resource-description-item/16675 "2008-06-28T14:08:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Tim\_Cook2](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Tim_Cook2)
#### Post date: [28 June 2008 14:08 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/resource-description-item/16675/1 "2008-06-28T14:08:36Z")
Shouldn't:RESOURCE\_DESCRIPTION\_ITEM
original\_resource\_uri:
Hash\
really be:RESOURCE\_DESCRIPTION\_ITEM
original\_resource\_uri:
Hash\
???
---
### Author:  [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)
#### Post date: [28 June 2008 23:50 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/resource-description-item/16675/2 "2008-06-28T23:50:43Z")
Tim Cook wrote:
> Shouldn't:RESOURCE\_DESCRIPTION\_ITEM
> original\_resource\_uri:
> Hash\
>
> really be:RESOURCE\_DESCRIPTION\_ITEM
> original\_resource\_uri:
> Hash\
>
> ???
>
> we originally kept out openEHR data types from the AOM spec (which this
> bit of the model orginally came from, even though it is now in the
> Common IM), because CEN wanted no dependence on openEHR in order to
> standardise the AOM (which they have now done, and it is in train in
> ISO). In hindsight, we should not have done this because CEN doesn't
> have any sensible data types, and the openEHR URI data type would have
> been fine. Nevertheless, having it as a string obviously doesn't prevent
> it being a URI, it just means that you have to do a little bit of
> processing to deal with it.
- thomas