Difference between revisions of "ActRelationship priorityNumber and other sequencing"
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''(This is just the template. Needs to be filled in.)'' | ''(This is just the template. Needs to be filled in.)'' | ||
− | + | NOTE: Harmonization proposal on public display here for the purpose of commenting and collaborative editing. All your edits are tracked and nothing gets lost. FEEL FREE to improve the proposal and to add any question you want to raise in the discussion. Thanks! | |
{|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 border=1 | {|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 border=1 |
Revision as of 03:37, 17 February 2006
(This is just the template. Needs to be filled in.)
NOTE: Harmonization proposal on public display here for the purpose of commenting and collaborative editing. All your edits are tracked and nothing gets lost. FEEL FREE to improve the proposal and to add any question you want to raise in the discussion. Thanks!
Recommendation for HL7 RIM Change | RECOMMENDATION ID: |
Submitted by: Gunther Schadow | Revision (# and date): 2 |
Date submitted: 20050212 | Committee status: open |
Submitted by: Gunther Schadow | |
NAME: ActRelationship.priorityNumber (and other numbers) |
Contents
Stewards Position
REQUIRED - This table should contain one row for each Steward Committee affected by the recommendation.
TC | RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL STATUS | AFFECTED ENTITIES OF INTEREST TO TC (responsibility level: S=Steward; I=Interested) |
O&O | Unknown | I |
RCRIM | Unknown | I |
PC | Unknown | I |
Issue
It is impossible to interpolate a new act-relationship with a different priorityNumber without requiring renumbering of all other relationships in that group.
Current State
Currently priorityNumbers is an INT.
Recommendation(s)
Change ActRelationship.priorityNumber to REAL
Rationale
Allows insertion of acts, reordering of priorities without requiring renumbering all the relationships. Priority numbers are often considered fractional, for example, in XSLT they are real numbers, and it is very useful.
Alternatives/Workarounds Considered
Currently workaround is to assign priorityNumbers in larger increments (e.g., 1000) which should leave enough room for insertions, but that would not represent the intent of priorityNumbers.
Discussion
May need to revise definition of priorityNumber and sequenceNumber to clarify the meaning and use of either. According to this proposal, sequenceNumber would stay INT
Recommended Action Items
- Implement the proposed solution