OO CR033-653 Taxonomy for Species in OM4

Return to OO Change Requests page.

Submitted by: Michael Martin	Revision date: <<Revision Date>>
Submitted date: 27-May-2010	Change request ID: OO CR033
Standard/IG: Standard	Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>>

Issue

See File:OO CR033-653.doc for problem definition and proposal. See also OO CR027-647 Taxononomy for Species in OM1.

Discussion

• 24-Jun-2010
  • Why do we need this if we already have OM1. Need justification as it appears to be a duplicate.
    • Taxonomy in OM1 indicates that the test itself is only applicable in specific species (or groups of species, etc., thus the word "taxonomy" rather than "species"). Taxonomy in OM4 means that the specified specimen type is appropriate in the listed taxonomy. The classic example is avian influenza testing in which most birds are tested from pharyngeal swabs whereas waterfowl shed virus in the gastrointestinal rather than respiratory tract and are therefore tested with cloacal swabs. Same test.
  • Might there be non-species specific testing?
    • Yes, and this is probably the weakest point in my proposal. If taxonomy is not provided in either OM1 or OM4, it may have one of two different meanings based on the context in which messaging is taking place. In a purely human context (99.999% of the time) it means "applies to humans." In a veterinary messaging context it means "may be applied to any species." But this is largely parallel to the well accepted usage in PID where I don't believe anyone ever populates PID.35 with "Homo sapiens."
  • Looks like it should be OM4-18, not OM4-15. Do we need to lock in, or not? If so, need to review sequence with other proposals.
    • I completely agree. I may have been working from an obsolete draft. The intention here, and in OM1 is to be at the end of the segment, where ever that ends up. So don't lock it in until final draft, "OM4.last" is fine with me. If we pre-adopt we'll warn developers that it will likely change.
• 1-Jul-2010
  • Michael clarified the questions.
  • Field is repeatable and length is 700. Since length applies to single occurrence, and we don't need to state this since as of V2.7 we only need to worry about lengths when we want them normative.
  • Concern with default. Agreed to make it human when empty and veterinary will populate with appropriate value for the whole kingdom.

Resolution

• 1-Jul-2010
  • Motion to accept as proposed with clarification that position can be fixed later and that default value defined as "human". Michael Martin, Rob Savage.
    • Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 10
  • Motion to lock in at OM4.18. Ken McCaslin, Michael Martin
    • Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 10