View source for Add ProfileId to ClinicalDocument

{{CDA R3 Closed Proposals}}

Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page.

{|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 border=1
|| '''Submitted by:''' Rene Spronk
|| '''Revision date:''' 2009-02-13
|-
|| '''Submitted date:''' <<Submit Date>>
|| '''Change request ID:''' n.a.
|-
|}

== Issue ==
The templateId of the CDA Header Act is current used for multiple purposes. One of those purposes is the identification of the implementation guide that a CDA instance complies with. 

For the ''messaging paradigm'' HL7 has two attributes to 
#identify the [[Profile]] ([[Implementation Guide|implementation guide]]) a message instance complies with ([http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot2008sep/html/infrastructure/rim/rim.htm#Transmission-profileId-att RIM Definition for the Message class]). This attribute is present in the "topmost" class of all v3 messages: Messsage.
#identify the Template (a [[LIM]]) that (a part of) the instance complies with ([http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot2008sep/html/infrastructure/rim/rim.htm#InfrastructureRoot-templateId-att RIM definition])

This proposal seeks to add the concept of Profile to the ''document paradigm'' by adding a corresponding attribute to the ClinicalDocument RIM class and making it available for use in CDA R3 implementations.

== Recommendation ==
*Create a RIM harmonization proposal to add a ProfileId attribute to the ClinicalDocument RIM class. 
*This would allow the implementation guide (which is essentially a set of templates AND a series of non-software processable business rules) to be identified in a different way than a template.

== Rationale ==
*A template is not the same thing as a profile, therefore there should be a separate way of identifying it.

== Discussion ==


== Recommended Action Items ==
*Implement the recommendation

== Resolution ==
(Resolution is to be recorded here and in the referenced minutes, which are the authoritative source of resolution).
The proposal was discussed, but was disapproved. (SDWG minutes of 2009 08 04)