Participation sequence number

Return to SDTC page; Return to CDA R3 Formal Proposals page.

Submitted by: Ioana Singureanu	Revision date: <<Revision Date>>
Submitted date: 11/17/2009	Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>>

Issue

Currently there is no way to specify the order in which participations or act relationships are to be processed. In some cases the order/priority is relevant to processing definitional elements (e.g. privacy rules).

Severity

Low: This is not a critical issue.

Recommendation

• Add "Participation.sequenceNumber:INT[0..1]" or "ActRelationship.priorityNumber:INT[0..1]"- to all Participation and ActRelationship instances in the document header and entry/clinical statement.

Rationale

Needed for Consent Directive representations and any other information specification that requires the enforcement of a specific order.

Discussion

The item was introduced during the SDWG meeting - Nov. 17th, 2009. Sequencing is available for "organizer" type entries but not of for other entries. This proposal would provide more options to those developing implmementation guides.

Resolution

March 9, 2010: More information needed. Committee doesn't understand why sequenceNumber is needed for ALL participants and act relationships in header (such as on legal authenticator).

April 13, 2010: Will add priorityNumber to CDA Header's generic participant clone (along with an example of how it might be used for NOK). Clinical statement requirements are covered by R3 RIM-based body. Other uses of priorityNumber and sequenceNumber in the header are rejected at this point for lack of use case. Opposed: 0; Abstain: 0; In favor: 7.