Difference between revisions of "CSCR-066 Make negationInd 0..1 optional throughout"
| (10 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
| − | 2006 | + | 24 August 2006 |
| − | |||
| − | + | Agreed to split the motion to deal with negationInd ObservationRange and Criterion seperatly from negationInd on act relationships. | |
| − | + | '''NegationInd in ObservationRange and Criterion''' | |
| − | + | Motion passed. (see below) | |
| + | '''NegationInd in act relationships:''' | ||
| − | + | There was no consensus regarding the use of NegationInd as a required attribute where the sending or receiving system are not be able to support negation. | |
| + | |||
| + | == Recommended Action Items == | ||
| + | 24 August 2006 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Rik is to post a message on the MnM list ?copy to patient care. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Resolution == | ||
| + | 24 August 2006 | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''NegationInd in ObservationRange and Criterion''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Motion passed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Proposed Rik, seconded Patrick. | ||
| + | Against: 0 Abstain: 0 For: Davera Gabriel, Patrick Loyd , Rik Smithies, Hans Buitendijk, Andrew Perry, Charlie Bishop | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | v0.2.4.02 of CSP updated - CVB | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Resolution == | ||
| + | 14 September 2006 | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''NegationInd in SourceOf01 and SourceOf2''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Proposed that the negationInd be made optional in the ClinicalStatement pattern for this ActRelationships. However, note be added that this should not be optional in implementable model but should either required or not permitted. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Proposed Rik, seconded Lee | ||
| + | |||
| + | Against: 0 Abstain: 3 For: 33 | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | v0.2.4.02 of CSP updated - CVB | ||
== Resolution == | == Resolution == | ||
| + | 14 September 2006 | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''RIM Boolean defaults''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Proposed that the issue of Boolean defaults be taken to MnM for a clarification and decision. Can a RIM default be assumed while constraining out an attribute. Depending on the outcome give guidance on effective use of Booleans (e.g. negationInd). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Proposed Lee, seconded John | ||
| + | |||
| + | Against: 1 Abstain: 8 For: 26 | ||
Latest revision as of 16:45, 25 January 2007
Editing of Change Requests is restricted to the submitter and the co-chairs of the Clinical Statement Project. Other changes will be undone. Please add comments to the "discussion" page associated with this Change Request.
Back to Clinical Statement Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: Rik Smithies | Revision date: 19-Jun-2006 |
| Submitted date: 19-Jun-2006 | Change request ID: CSCR-066 |
Contents
Issue
NegationInd is present in ObservationRange and Criterion as [1..1] default "false". (Strangely these are neither required nor mandatory, so are 1..1 optional.) Most other negationInd attributes in the model are [0..1] optional, the exception being SourceOf2 and SourceOf1, where it is [0..1] required (it seems a little strange to have a boolean value as 'required').
Models that make use of code systems that include concepts similar to negationInd have no need for this attribute and should be able to refine it out totally. An alternative that has been used is for models that don't need negationInd to make it mandatory with fixed value "false", but this seems unnecessary and wasteful, although that would still be possible.
Recommendation
- Make all negationInd attributes 0..1 Optional default "false". Specifically this means changing ObservationRange, Criterion, SourceOf2 and SourceOf1.
Rationale
This means negationInd can be refined out completely in models that don't need them.
Discussion
24 August 2006
Agreed to split the motion to deal with negationInd ObservationRange and Criterion seperatly from negationInd on act relationships.
NegationInd in ObservationRange and Criterion
Motion passed. (see below)
NegationInd in act relationships:
There was no consensus regarding the use of NegationInd as a required attribute where the sending or receiving system are not be able to support negation.
Recommended Action Items
24 August 2006
Rik is to post a message on the MnM list ?copy to patient care.
Resolution
24 August 2006
NegationInd in ObservationRange and Criterion
Motion passed.
Proposed Rik, seconded Patrick. Against: 0 Abstain: 0 For: Davera Gabriel, Patrick Loyd , Rik Smithies, Hans Buitendijk, Andrew Perry, Charlie Bishop
v0.2.4.02 of CSP updated - CVB
Resolution
14 September 2006
NegationInd in SourceOf01 and SourceOf2
Proposed that the negationInd be made optional in the ClinicalStatement pattern for this ActRelationships. However, note be added that this should not be optional in implementable model but should either required or not permitted.
Proposed Rik, seconded Lee
Against: 0 Abstain: 3 For: 33
v0.2.4.02 of CSP updated - CVB
Resolution
14 September 2006
RIM Boolean defaults
Proposed that the issue of Boolean defaults be taken to MnM for a clarification and decision. Can a RIM default be assumed while constraining out an attribute. Depending on the outcome give guidance on effective use of Booleans (e.g. negationInd).
Proposed Lee, seconded John
Against: 1 Abstain: 8 For: 26
