Difference between revisions of "CSCR-111 Product relationship to Supply Act should be non mandatory in CS"
Riksmithies (talk | contribs) |
Riksmithies (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
== Resolution == | == Resolution == | ||
| − | + | Proposal as in dicussion section: Motion to approve change: Stephen, Hans | |
| − | Against: 0; Abstain: | + | Against: 0; Abstain: 1; In Favor: 5 carried |
Latest revision as of 18:48, 13 September 2012
Back to Clinical Statement Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: Rik Smithies | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: 11-Sep-12 | Change request ID: CSCR-111 |
Issue
From Rx alignment sheet (posted to list 27th July)
Product relationship to Supply Act should be relaxed in CS. It is currently mandatory in CS, but not in RX.
It is mandatory in CS since supply has to supply something. But product can also be on the organizer instead. Seems ok to relax to optional 0..*, with note to say need a product somewhere in the associated classes.
Recommendation
- todo
Rationale
Discussion
Stephen states, needs "elsewhere" to be more specific. Suggest must be an organizer class.
Organizer currently has no PRD. Suggest to add this as a shadow and document that it is to be used if there is not one on Supply. Document Supply PRD to say, 0..* but must be PRD either on supply or on its parent Organizer.
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
Proposal as in dicussion section: Motion to approve change: Stephen, Hans Against: 0; Abstain: 1; In Favor: 5 carried
