This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Code Conformance Discussion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: "'''Code Conformance'''" is related to the issues and implications are for declaring conformance to model bound Value Sets in either data types or attributes in static models. * Issues are...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | "'''Code Conformance'''" is related to the issues and implications | + | "'''Code Conformance'''" is related to the issues and implications for declaring whether all the codes in model bound Value Sets for either data types or attributes in static models are considered to be required or optional. The issue is primarily whether all the codes defined in the value set must be supported in all implementations and in further constrained models. To do this, a value set may need to be defined as containing required codes. For realms, this is particularly important for codes supporting data type properties. For attributes, a coding strength of CNE only indicates that codes in an instance must be present in the value set bound to the attribute, but doesn't indicate that all codes must be supported. |
| − | + | ||
| − | * | + | * For example: If when we bind country codes at the UV level to a value set that says all codes are "required" (i.e. all implementations must support all codes to be conformant), then realm-specific constraints aren't possible. If on the other hand we bind a value set at the UV codes where the codes are optional, then we can constrain in realm bindings to a smaller set of codes, or declare some or all of them required at the realm level. |
| − | ** | + | * Issues are related to: |
| + | ** Are there any constraints on who can declare a value set to be "required"? Only UV or Affiliates? | ||
| + | ** How would a value set definition that has required codes be expressed? A "Conformance" property with Required or Optional values, with Optional being the default? | ||
| + | ** Alternatively, it may be possible to indicate the expectation that all codes in a bound value set are "required" or "optional" if the value set definition itself does not have such a property, although it might be onerous to have to specify in all static model definitions. How would this alternative "conformance" expectation be expressed? | ||
| + | ** How would a conformance statement identify that only a sub-set of the value set codes are supported? A separately registered value set bound to the static model instead of the parent binding? | ||
Revision as of 19:48, 14 October 2008
"Code Conformance" is related to the issues and implications for declaring whether all the codes in model bound Value Sets for either data types or attributes in static models are considered to be required or optional. The issue is primarily whether all the codes defined in the value set must be supported in all implementations and in further constrained models. To do this, a value set may need to be defined as containing required codes. For realms, this is particularly important for codes supporting data type properties. For attributes, a coding strength of CNE only indicates that codes in an instance must be present in the value set bound to the attribute, but doesn't indicate that all codes must be supported.
- For example: If when we bind country codes at the UV level to a value set that says all codes are "required" (i.e. all implementations must support all codes to be conformant), then realm-specific constraints aren't possible. If on the other hand we bind a value set at the UV codes where the codes are optional, then we can constrain in realm bindings to a smaller set of codes, or declare some or all of them required at the realm level.
- Issues are related to:
- Are there any constraints on who can declare a value set to be "required"? Only UV or Affiliates?
- How would a value set definition that has required codes be expressed? A "Conformance" property with Required or Optional values, with Optional being the default?
- Alternatively, it may be possible to indicate the expectation that all codes in a bound value set are "required" or "optional" if the value set definition itself does not have such a property, although it might be onerous to have to specify in all static model definitions. How would this alternative "conformance" expectation be expressed?
- How would a conformance statement identify that only a sub-set of the value set codes are supported? A separately registered value set bound to the static model instead of the parent binding?
