This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

ActRelationship priorityNumber and other sequencing

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 14:18, 18 February 2006 by Gschadow (talk | contribs) (→‎Discussion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)  

Stewards Position

REQUIRED - This table should contain one row for each Steward Committee affected by the recommendation.

(responsibility level: S=Steward; I=Interested)
O&O Unknown I
RCRIM Unknown I
PC Unknown I


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.


Change ActRelationship.priorityNumber to REAL


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.


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

As long as there isn't a strong use case of "inserting" something with an existing sequence without sending the entire list of things in the sequence, sequenceNumber would have to stay INT IMHO. Suggest that clarifying wording to differentiate the usage of priorityNumber and sequenceNumber be added to this proposal (i.e. to its recommendations, not just as part of the discussion) Rene spronk 01:25, 17 Feb 2006 (CST)
Agree that sequenceNumber would stay INT.) Gunther Schadow

Recommended Action Items

  • Implement the proposed solution