Fix definition of PART
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!
PROPOSAL STATUS: NEW (in draft process)
|Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change||RECOMMENDATION ID:|
|Submitted by: Gunther Schadow||Revision (# and date): 1|
|Date submitted: 20060314||Committee status: open|
|Submitted by: Gunther Schadow|
|NAME: Role class Partitive and PART fix|
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)
PART is defined too broadly.
Definition: "An association between two Entities where the playing Entity is considered in some way "part" of the scoping Entity, e.g., as a member, component, ingredient, or content. Being "part" in the broadest sense of the word can mean anything from being an integral structural component to a mere incidental temporary association of a playing Entity with a (generally larger) scoping Entity."
Definition: "A role played by an Entity which is a structural component of the scoper Entity. Example: my arm is a part of my body, my car's tire is a part of my car, a syringe is part if a medicine kit. Discussion: taking away a part leaves the whole in a defective state. This is contrasted to member, where taking away a member reduces the whole, but it leaves behind other members which can take the place of the missing one."
The present definition of PART is the definition of PartitiveRole and probably moved down in a reorganization of the part itive role hierarchy. It is only used presently in a specific meaning, as opposed to the other partitive roles. Therefore, it should be redefined rather than moved up in the hierarchy.
Moving PART up, see under rationale.
- The new definition is a constraint of the old one, and is therefore not backwards compatible. Therefore (as an alternative which does not have such repercussions) it should be considered that a new concept code be created, as a subconcept of PART, which contains the constrained definition. Rene spronk 16:49, 14 Mar 2006 (CST)
- That is understood. But it was seen that all current usages of PART were considering the placement in the hierarchy rather than the broad definition. The placement in the hierarchy really is part of the definition, hence, we can argue that the definition was contradictory (saying that it subsumed the other partitive roles but then not actually subsuming them) and all we do is fix that contradiction by removing one part of the over-definition. Gunther Schadow 20:49, 14 Mar 2006 (EST)
Recommended Action Items
- Implement the proposed solution