This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "CSCR-022 Redundant Attribute"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 19: Line 19:
  
 
== Discussion ==
 
== Discussion ==
09-Mon-200X
+
20 April 2006
*Initial points
+
*Decision deferred to a future meeting to allow further consultation on potential impact.
 +
*Agreed that if the CR is eventually accepted a note should be added to the model explaining why the attribute has been omitted.
 +
 
  
 
== Resolution ==
 
== Resolution ==
 
Motion (First, second): Motion
 
Motion (First, second): Motion
 
Against: 0; Abstain: X; In Favor: Z
 
Against: 0; Abstain: X; In Favor: Z

Revision as of 21:35, 28 September 2006

Back to Clinical Statement Change Requests page.

Submitted by: Charlie Bishop Revision date: ?
Submitted date: 08 March 2005 Change request ID: CSCR-022

(Copied from HL7 Website Meeting Minutes and original Change Request)

Issue

Is it sensible to include attributes that must have a predefined value in the pattern? ActChoice.sourceOf1.contextConductionInd must always be “false”.

Recommendation

Remove this attribute form the message

Rationale

The context of an existing act that is being referenced should not be modified by the reference. Consequently, sourceOf1.contextConductionInd should never have a value of “true” but retaining the attribute (even with a default of “false”) allows an invalid value to be transmitted.

Discussion

20 April 2006

  • Decision deferred to a future meeting to allow further consultation on potential impact.
  • Agreed that if the CR is eventually accepted a note should be added to the model explaining why the attribute has been omitted.


Resolution

Motion (First, second): Motion Against: 0; Abstain: X; In Favor: Z