This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

DataTypes Comments Section 1

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 14:46, 5 March 2008 by Hsolbrig (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Editorial Comments on DataTypes Abstract Specification V2.0 Rev 5699

  • 1 Overview
    • 1.1 Introduction and Scope
      1. P3 - ...intended to implemented directly based on the details.
      2. P4 What is a "payload"?
      3. RMO-ODP reference won't be obvious to everyone. Recommend an external reference and a short statement about the "external" and "computational" views are.
    • 1.2 What is a Data Type?
      1. P1 - What is a data element and how does it relate to types and values"
      2. P3 - "A semantic property of a data type is referred to by a name and can be evaluated for any value of data type."
        1. (Editorial) of a data type?
        2. Should "semantic property" be defined before we talk about how it fits. In general this paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense. Expand
      3. P4 - ... construct any> higher order meanings: messages, computerized patient record documents, or business objects and their transactions
      4. P4 - Neither identity nor state nor changinge of state is defined for a data value. Conversely iI business objects, documents and messages (???), we track state...

1.3 ...are can be defined - intensionally - ... (why the hyphens?) Are cardinal numbers defined as a data type? 1.3 How about "For example, a data type for cardinal numbers (non-negative integers) can be defined as the combination of a successor function, which yields the successor for any given cardinal number plus the rule that zero is the cardinal number that is not the successor for any other cardinal value. We can use this definition...

...the boolean data type can be defined extensionally, with two distinct values.

1.4 ...

  1. going seriously passive here - how about "Data types specify the properties of data values."
  2. Units aren't the most common example.
  3. More generally, however, one should view ...
  4. "value set" isn't defined.
  1. "Whether semantic properties..." - what is a semantic property???

In general, this section needs some work - expanding and polishing, but it is getting closer.


  1. "... version 3 is its openness towardsneutrality regarding representation and implementation technologies. . All HL7 version 3 specifications are supposed to be done in a form independent from specific representation and implementation technologiesrequired to be technology and representationally nutral.
  1. Some of these questions make no sense until you've read the rest of the spec. If you are going to introduce ANY in the introductory material, you need more explanation.
  1. With a semantic specification - What IS this?


  • Foundation
  1. NULL comment on BL a bit out of place, but it passes.
  2. COMP and CEQ seem out of place. In addition, is CEQ abstract as well?
  • Basic
  1. Instead of the data, an ED may contain only a reference - This needs clarification.
  2. Note that ST is a specialization of ED where the mediaType is fixed to text/plain and several other properties are constrained to null. - out of place - this goes with the next entry as a second sentence. ST is a specialization of ED ...
  3. that optionally may - isn't this a split inifinitive?
  4. CD - this needs redefinition - the definition is not correct and is unnecessarily inflammatory
  5. CO - Coded dataA Concept Descriptor where an ordering relation is defined among some or all of the concept codes. Numerical value has *nothing* to do with this. This is implementation specific.
  6. CS - Coded data where all the fields are predetermined with the exception of the code.
  7. TEL - is this a URI or a URL? Is URL implementation specific?
  8. EN is underspecified, but will pass
  • Quantities
  1. PQ - how does this align with the previous 3? - Are INT, REAL and RTO al quantities if so, it would be good to stress this, so we understand that PQ takes one of these and adds dimension.
  2. EXPR - does this belong in Quantity or the paragrpah below.
  • Quantity Collections
  1. expressional is a wierd word - does it mean expression?
  2. "Term" is capitalized and used without definitions. Can we fit it into QSET?
  3. QSD and QSP need to be differentiated
  4. QSC - need more detail.
  5. IVL - same
  • Uncertaintities
  1. What is a "generic data type extension"
  2. "used to specify"? - That specifies?
  3. " (§ ) are not fully qualified types, but only restrictions on previously defined types and flavors." - what is this? What does it reference...
  • Flavors

Something is missing here - shouldn't there be an introductory paragraph of some sort? The paragraph needs to mention that the meaning of the constraints will be clarified by looking at each individual type.

  1. ED.DOC.INLINE so the contents are a document is not provided by means of a reference.
  2. ED.DOC.REF - so that the contents are a reference to a document."
  3. TEL.URL - didn't the definition of "TEL" say it had to be a URL?
  4. PN, ... - why is Entity and Person capitalized? Maybe explain in the introductory material? I would rather see lower case.
  5. IVL.LOW, IVL.HIGH, IVL.WIDTH, ... - not a semantic explanation. Replace lowClosed with what it means.
  6. GTS.BOUNDEDPIVL - good lord. This needs to be restated in English.

1.8 Conformance

  1. Should there be an introductory paragraph that grounds the meaning of "SHALL", "MAY" and any other critical keyword?
  2. All instances of these data types SHALL be valid with respect to the invariant statements contained in this specification.
  1. Question: Is it up to the creator or the recipient to make sure this is true? The second sentence weakly implies the creator, but it isn't absolutely clear.
  1. "Definition 1" - not sure I agree with the caption. Maybe this should be a simple textbox?

1.8.1 Constraining Model

  1. Need a bit more datail.
  2. Why is "Contstraining Model" capitalized, but not "Primary?
  3. This paragraph needs clarification - are null flavors outside the scope of constraining models? Is there any way that a constraining model can declare that it doesn't allow a null flavor in a given data value? This tends to imply not, which I don't think is what is intended.
  4. NI - need to spell this out.
  5. Where did "*" come in on cardinalities - did we intend to add "0..*" and 1..*"? If not, what goes on. What does "Cardinality of 1" mean with respect to what was just stated. Wouldn't this be more simply put in terms of min and max cardinality?
  1. Paragraphs appear out of order.