Fix ActRelationship concept "transformation"
NOTE: Harmonization proposal on public display here for the purpose of commenting and collaborative editing. All your edits are tracked and nothing gets lost. FEEL FREE to improve the proposal and to add any question you want to raise in the discussion. Thanks!
| Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change | RECOMMENDATION ID: |
| Submitted by: Gunther Schadow | Revision (# and date): 1 |
| Date submitted: 20060624 | Committee status: open |
| Submitted by: Gunther Schadow | |
| NAME: Fix definition of ActRelationship Transformation |
Stewards Position
REQUIRED - This table should contain one row for each Steward Committee affected by the recommendation.
| TC | RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL STATUS | AFFECTED ENTITIES OF INTEREST TO TC (responsibility level: S=Steward; I=Interested) |
There is an error in the definition of ActRelationship transformation, which reads:
C11624 XFRM transformation
"Used when the target Act is a transformation of the source Act. (For instance, used to show that a CDA document is a transformation of a DICOM SR document.)"
However, this is inconsistent with the definition of its generalization, which is:
ActRelationshipSequel S10337 SEQL is sequel
"An act relationship indicating that the source act follows the target act. The source act should in principle represent the same kind of act as the target. Source and target need not have the same mood code (mood will often differ). The target of a sequel is called antecedent. Examples for sequel relationships are: revision, transformation, derivation from a prototype (as a specialization is a derivation of a generalization), followup, realization, instantiation."
The source act must follow the target act, that is, the source act should be the transformation of the target act, not the target act the transformation of the source act.
This must be fixed by changing the definition. This may have an effect on CDA, however, it must be noted that this is an ERROR in the definition of XFRM and the definition is inconsistent with the terminology and hence that it is broken the way it is now. It should be fixed.
If it is used, then our only way to fix it may be to deprecate that which is broken and add another concept TFRM with the proper definition.
Also, this should be the generalization of the excerpt and verbatim excerpt relationships, because an excerpt is necessarily a transform.
Recommended Action Items
- Implement the proposed solution
