Difference between revisions of "CDA R3 Legal Authentication Cardinality"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{CDA R3 | + | {{CDA R3 Closed Proposals}} |
Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page. | Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
== Resolution == | == Resolution == | ||
| + | Sept 9, 2010: no further input from Kai. Will close for now, and invite Kai to offer further clarification. Opposed: 0; Abstain: 0; in favor: 14. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:00, 9 September 2010
Return to SDTC page; Return to CDA R3 Formal Proposals page.
See CDA R3 Formal Proposals for instructions on using this form. Failure to adhere to these instructions may result in delays. Editing of formal proposals is restricted to the submitter and SDTC co-chairs. Other changes will be undone. Comments can be captured in the associated discussion page.
| Submitted by: Kai U. Heitmann | Revision date: 2009-09-29 |
| Submitted date: 2009-09-29 | Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>> |
Issue
In some legislations (for example in Germany) there is the need to identify TWO or MORE legal authenticators in a clinical document.
Recommendation
Change cardinality of legalAuthenticator from 0..1 to 0..*
Rationale
Discussion
March 23, 2010: We'd like to understand this use case better from Kai before taking action. (We understand that there are types of contracts where two parties need to attest to the accuracy of the document).
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
Sept 9, 2010: no further input from Kai. Will close for now, and invite Kai to offer further clarification. Opposed: 0; Abstain: 0; in favor: 14.
