Difference between revisions of "CSCR-042 Refine Observation Act"
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
== Issue == | == Issue == | ||
Observation act constrains code attribute to [1..1] required. This seems to assume a partular usage of the code/value pattern and until TermInfo can give conclusive general guidance for all vocabularies this should not be assumed. | Observation act constrains code attribute to [1..1] required. This seems to assume a partular usage of the code/value pattern and until TermInfo can give conclusive general guidance for all vocabularies this should not be assumed. | ||
Revision as of 01:03, 7 February 2006
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 Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: Heath Frankel | Revision date: |
| Submitted date: 6 Feb. 2006 | Change request Id: 042 |
Issue
Observation act constrains code attribute to [1..1] required. This seems to assume a partular usage of the code/value pattern and until TermInfo can give conclusive general guidance for all vocabularies this should not be assumed.
Recomendation
- Change code attribute to [0..1] optional
Rationale
There still seems to be indecision about the usage of code and value in Observation Acts. There seems to be three options depending on what vocabularies you use or even which realm you use those vocabularies. As one of these options is to use the value attribute only and not use the code attribute. Until this guideance is conclusive it seems premptive to constrain the Clinical Statement assuming that the code attribute will always be used.
