Difference between revisions of "Context Conduction"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{MnM Open Hot Topic}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Issue== | ||
At the moment, there are two attributes (contextConductionCode and contextConductionInd) which are used to convey the intended behavior of a data-model in terms of conducting context. However there are several issues associated with ths. | At the moment, there are two attributes (contextConductionCode and contextConductionInd) which are used to convey the intended behavior of a data-model in terms of conducting context. However there are several issues associated with ths. | ||
| − | == 1. Issue with inability to say "Add and don't conduct" == | + | === 1. Issue with inability to say "Add and don't conduct" === |
The definition for the ContextControlCode "AN" in the Vocabulary section of the ballot appears to conflict with the example given in the RIM section of the ballot for this attribute. | The definition for the ContextControlCode "AN" in the Vocabulary section of the ballot appears to conflict with the example given in the RIM section of the ballot for this attribute. | ||
Vocabulary: | Vocabulary: | ||
| Line 16: | Line 19: | ||
The definition or description needs to be fixed. There needs to be a way to say "add this author to the current context, and then don't propagate any", but at the moment we can't do that. | The definition or description needs to be fixed. There needs to be a way to say "add this author to the current context, and then don't propagate any", but at the moment we can't do that. | ||
| − | == 2. Definition of "OP" needs to make clear that 'overriding' nature does not propagate == | + | === 2. Definition of "OP" needs to make clear that 'overriding' nature does not propagate === |
Question: I understand that ContextControlCode "OP" overrides an association with the same type code. As in the above example, where the pharmacy order has only a single reason relationship to a diagnosis, due to the OP on the relationship against the pharmacy order. That is, the reason relationship on the composite order is not conducted down to the pharmacy order. However, what would happen if the dispense event had it's own reason relationship to a diagnosis with ContextControlCode = AP? Would the dispense event then have 2 reason relationships (one inherited from the pharmacy order and one on the dispense event itself)? Or would the reason relationship on the pharmacy order (OP) override the reason relationship on the dispense event? To put it another way, is the 'overriding' part of 'overriding-propagating' conducted down from the parent act to the child act? | Question: I understand that ContextControlCode "OP" overrides an association with the same type code. As in the above example, where the pharmacy order has only a single reason relationship to a diagnosis, due to the OP on the relationship against the pharmacy order. That is, the reason relationship on the composite order is not conducted down to the pharmacy order. However, what would happen if the dispense event had it's own reason relationship to a diagnosis with ContextControlCode = AP? Would the dispense event then have 2 reason relationships (one inherited from the pharmacy order and one on the dispense event itself)? Or would the reason relationship on the pharmacy order (OP) override the reason relationship on the dispense event? To put it another way, is the 'overriding' part of 'overriding-propagating' conducted down from the parent act to the child act? | ||
| Line 22: | Line 25: | ||
Lloyd response: The "overriding" vs. "additive" nature affects the context of the current node. The "propagating" vs. "non-propagating" determines whether it conducts to the next node. "overridingness" does not affect child nodes. | Lloyd response: The "overriding" vs. "additive" nature affects the context of the current node. The "propagating" vs. "non-propagating" determines whether it conducts to the next node. "overridingness" does not affect child nodes. | ||
| − | == 3. Need to address propagation of attributes == | + | === 3. Need to address propagation of attributes === |
Some attributes such as languageCode and confidentialityCode have propagation like behaviors. However, no rules are yet defined for them | Some attributes such as languageCode and confidentialityCode have propagation like behaviors. However, no rules are yet defined for them | ||
Revision as of 22:52, 3 July 2006
This page documents an Open MnM Hot Topic, i.e. a methodology issue requiring a resolution from Modeling and Methodology.
Contents
Issue
At the moment, there are two attributes (contextConductionCode and contextConductionInd) which are used to convey the intended behavior of a data-model in terms of conducting context. However there are several issues associated with ths.
1. Issue with inability to say "Add and don't conduct"
The definition for the ContextControlCode "AN" in the Vocabulary section of the ballot appears to conflict with the example given in the RIM section of the ballot for this attribute. Vocabulary: [The association adds to the existing context associated with the Act, but will not propagate to any descendant Acts reached by conducting ActRelationships (see contextControlCode). Examples: If an 'Author' Participation were marked as "Additive, Non-Propagating" it means that the author will be added to the set of author participations that have propagated from ancestor Acts for the purpose of this Act. However only the previously propagated authors will propagate to any child Acts that allow context to be propagated. ]
RIM: [A composite order is created containing a pharmacy order as well as requests for several lab tests. The composite order has participations for patient and author, and an act relationship to a diagnosis, all marked as "additive, propagating". The "component" association between the composite order and the pharmacy order is marked as conductive (contextConductionInd is TRUE). The pharmacy order has an author participation marked as "additive, non-propagating" (AN), and a reason relationship to a diagnosis, marked as "overriding, propagating" (OP). The order further has a relationship to a dispense event, marked as conductive, and an association to a drug protocol marked as non-conductive (contextConductionInd is FALSE). The meaning would be as follows: The pharmacy order is interpreted as having the patient from the composite order, and having two authors (the one from the composite order, and the one on the pharmacy order itself). The diagnosis for the pharmacy order would only be the diagnosis specified on the pharmacy order, not the one specified on the composite order. The dispense event would carry the patient from the composite order and the diagnosis from the pharmacy order, but no author. The drug protocol would not be associated with a patient, diagnosis or author. ]
The example states that the dispense event would have no author participations. I presume the reason for this is that the author participation on the pharmacy request is AN and therefore, neither the author for the composite order (AP), nor the author for the pharmacy order (AN) would be propagated to the dispense event. However the vocabulary domain value definition states that "previously propagated authors will propagate to any child Acts that allow context to be propagated". I interpret this to mean that the author for the composite order (AP) would be propagated to the dispense event, but not the author for the pharmacy order (AN). Can someone please clarify this?
The definition or description needs to be fixed. There needs to be a way to say "add this author to the current context, and then don't propagate any", but at the moment we can't do that.
2. Definition of "OP" needs to make clear that 'overriding' nature does not propagate
Question: I understand that ContextControlCode "OP" overrides an association with the same type code. As in the above example, where the pharmacy order has only a single reason relationship to a diagnosis, due to the OP on the relationship against the pharmacy order. That is, the reason relationship on the composite order is not conducted down to the pharmacy order. However, what would happen if the dispense event had it's own reason relationship to a diagnosis with ContextControlCode = AP? Would the dispense event then have 2 reason relationships (one inherited from the pharmacy order and one on the dispense event itself)? Or would the reason relationship on the pharmacy order (OP) override the reason relationship on the dispense event? To put it another way, is the 'overriding' part of 'overriding-propagating' conducted down from the parent act to the child act?
Lloyd response: The "overriding" vs. "additive" nature affects the context of the current node. The "propagating" vs. "non-propagating" determines whether it conducts to the next node. "overridingness" does not affect child nodes.
3. Need to address propagation of attributes
Some attributes such as languageCode and confidentialityCode have propagation like behaviors. However, no rules are yet defined for them
