Difference between revisions of "V3 Substantivity"
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{MnM Closed Hot Topic}} | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| Line 12: | Line 5: | ||
mandatory status, conformance condition, and or multiplicity of | mandatory status, conformance condition, and or multiplicity of | ||
attributes and associations? | attributes and associations? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Specifically, the document reads as follows today: "Attribute conformance can be changed from Required to Mandatory, and from Optional to Required, but not the reverse." | ||
| + | |||
| + | In balloting the following commment was received: "2 issues with this bullet point: | ||
| + | 1) It sounds like the opposite of v2 which should be explained. In v2.x (see Chap 2, section 2.8.2) optionality can only be tightened (Existing optional fields may be made conditional or required). Seems like there should be some correlation. | ||
| + | 2) Formal English should be used." | ||
| + | |||
| + | See also [[Semantic Backward Compatibility]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Resolution== | ||
| + | January 17, 2010, Q3 | ||
| + | The rules for what changes constitute backward-compatible changes and which constitute <i>substantive change</i> are documented in the <b>HL7 Version 3: Substantive Change</b> document in the HL7 Ballot Package under the Background Documents section | ||
Latest revision as of 00:04, 18 January 2010
This page documents a Closed, fully actioned MnM Hot Topic, i.e. a methodology issue requiring a resolution from Modeling and Methodology.
What are the rules for changing the
mandatory status, conformance condition, and or multiplicity of
attributes and associations?
Specifically, the document reads as follows today: "Attribute conformance can be changed from Required to Mandatory, and from Optional to Required, but not the reverse."
In balloting the following commment was received: "2 issues with this bullet point: 1) It sounds like the opposite of v2 which should be explained. In v2.x (see Chap 2, section 2.8.2) optionality can only be tightened (Existing optional fields may be made conditional or required). Seems like there should be some correlation. 2) Formal English should be used."
See also Semantic Backward Compatibility
Resolution
January 17, 2010, Q3 The rules for what changes constitute backward-compatible changes and which constitute substantive change are documented in the HL7 Version 3: Substantive Change document in the HL7 Ballot Package under the Background Documents section
