PHER Issues Table - 2006-09

Return to Category:Referred Reconciliation Issues

This is the Set of the Issues forwarded from RR (PHER SIG) to Methodology and Modeling between May and September, 2006.

Content from Reconciliation Spreadsheet

Item ID	Source	Level	Issue	Proposed Disposition
RR 1	Richard HARDING	Neg-Mj	The names of classes that appear in the RMIM diagram change unpredictably when they are displayed in the Table View and Excel Views and in the Schema. Eg Diagram shows a class "pertainsTo" which is "PertinentInformation" in the Table Excel and schema. In this instance the problem is confounded by how the hyperlink works - go to the diagram and follow the pertainsTo hyperlink, you do not see anything similar on the target page. This is the "Dick's Name Change problem" which I have ballotted at many previous ballot cycles. I note that your RMIM walkthroughs recognise this phenomenon. Please make these names consistent among all views. In my experience it upsets new readers considerably.	Proposed resolution goes here
RR 2	Richard HARDING	Neg-Mj	Similarly "fulfillment" becomes "InFulfillmentOf2". None of your classes in the RMIM diagram retain their case-sensitive names in the Table, excel and schema views. This is the "Dick's Name Change problem" which I have ballotted at many previous ballot cycles. Please make these names consistent among all views.	Proposed resolution goes here
RR 3	Richard HARDING	Neg-Mj	Please conduct a committee vote about whether this dual-name behaviour is acceptable. Report the result of this vote to MnM Tooling and the balloter. Refer this matter to MnM Tooling. Because of the large number of times I have balloted this matter and received no response, I intend to take the "Paul Biron approach" with this ballot - I will not withdraw my negative on this item without greater assurance that the matter identified has been fixed.	Proposed resolution goes here
4	Richard HARDING	Neg-Mj	Excel Views, table view, schema view, and RMIM diagram for the same HMD each present substantially different information. Which one is the definitive Normative view? Where is that documented? This has been balloted many times in various domains but I am yet to get a response to this question.	Proposed resolution goes here
5	Richard HARDING	Neg-Mj	Default values must appear on Excel Views - they are currently shown on TableViews. Fixed values (as shown on the table view) must be adequately highlighted on the Excel View. Bob Dolin has an outstanding ballot item on this one from January 2005 (well over one year ago) that complained of this in the PA domain. The problem is not with Lab it is with Tooling / Publishing. Note also another comment in this ballot where I identify that Fixed and Default do not seem to be defined in the Vocabulary documentation, or V3 Guide. I intend to take the "Paul Biron approach" with this ballot - I will not withdraw my negative on this item without greater assurance that the matter identified has been fixed.	Proposed resolution goes here
RR 7	Richard HARDING	Neg-Mj	This Topic has no attribute-level descriptions in the Table and excel Views where they are most readily usable. Indeed I am unable to find attribute-level descriptions for any data item. I note that all of our competitors (RosettaNet, CEN, IHE even V2) all have quite extensive attribute-level descriptions where they are easily accessible. I have balloted this consistently since second ballot in various domains - that is twelve ballot cycles. To date tooling has not provided an adequate tool for this. I intend to take the "Paul Biron approach" with this ballot - I will not withdraw my negative on this item without greater assurance that the matter identified has been fixed.	Proposed resolution goes here
RR 8	Richard HARDING	A-Q	Please conduct a committee vote about whether the lack of attribute-level descriptions is acceptable in your domain. Report the result of this vote to MnM Tooling and the balloter. Refer this matter to MnM Tooling. Because of the large number of times I have balloted this matter and received no response, I intend to take the "Paul Biron approach" with this ballot - I will not withdraw my negative on this item without greater assurance that the matter identified has been fixed.	Proposed resolution goes here
RR 11	Austin Kreisler	A-S	At the latest RIM harmonization it was determined that Organizations should never "play" the role of a performer. The InvestigationRequest and InvestigationPromise both allow the R_AssignedOrganization to be the performer of an investigation. This needs to be changed, probably by separating the author participation from the performer participation. The may be a person or an organization. The performer is only a person.	Proposed resolution goes here
RR 12	Austin Kreisler	A-S	At the latest RIM harmonization it was determined that Organizations should never "play" the role of a performer. The A_PublicHealthStatement model currently uses the R_AssignedEntity CMET to handle the performer, which means an organization can be the performer. This needs to be changed to use the R_AssignedDevice and the R_AssignedPerson CMETs which can be the performers. Probably need to look at creating a R_AssignedLivingSubject CMET also (doesn't exist today).	Proposed resolution goes here
6	Richard HARDING	A-Q	CONCEPT OF FIXED AND DEFAULT CODED VALUES. What behaviour do we expect of a sender when valuing an attribute defined as {CNE:IRCP, default= "IRCP"} where the default value is a Specialised term? This appears in POLB_HD004000. I am sure that other examples exist. Do we expect the user to select the most appropriate child of IRCP? That imposes some difficult responsibilities on the receiver. If this is so, will all receiving applications be programmed to correctly interpret this? I suspect this behaviour is unsafe. Do we expect the user to always use IRCP and never select a child? That implies that the value is fixed and the word "default" should actually be "fixed". Do we expect either IRCP or its children will be used? I find this to be unsafe as well. Where is any of this documented? The words "default and "fixed" do not appear in either the RIM or Vocabulary documents.	Proposed resolution goes here