This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "Datatypes R2 Issue 1"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
== Discussion ==
 
== Discussion ==
 +
 +
 +
Grahame Grieve:
 +
I have been inclined to think that the EXPR<> approach is a far better way to approach the qualification that the qualifiers, and would also cater for any of the kind of issues that require the group.
 +
 +
David Markwell:
 +
the EXPR<> approach is a close call in my mind. There are two reasons why the group and qualifier approach has short term
 +
benefits. It is simpler to implement and it is already being used.
 +
 +
Simpler to implement: In the sense that it uses XML as part of the schema.
 +
 +
Already being used: In the UK National Programme and change at this stage would probably cost real money.
 +
 +
Longer term as I am drafting a document on SNOMED CT expressions I can see big attractions in future flexibility. However, flexibility of this sort comes at a cost. Happy to discuss at the WGM as a future but for now the squeezing in of the group is an important step forward.
 +
 +
Cecil:
 +
I am concerned about deprecating qualifier due to the uses it has already enjoyed in implementations (mine for one). For backward compatibility, I think David has the right scheme.
 +
 +
== Disposition ==
 +
 
This is required to support post co-ordinated Snomed, and has been discussed and approved in committee a number of times.
 
This is required to support post co-ordinated Snomed, and has been discussed and approved in committee a number of times.
 +
 +
 +
== Status ==
 +
 +
Approved - to be changed in the source
  
 
== Links ==
 
== Links ==
 
Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]]
 
Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]]

Revision as of 02:54, 12 January 2007

Data Types Issue 1: Add CD.group

Introduction

Add a group property to CD that contains qualifier elements. Add group : LIST<LIST<CR>> to abstract and XML

This is a new attribute, no backwards compatibility issues


Discussion

Grahame Grieve: I have been inclined to think that the EXPR<> approach is a far better way to approach the qualification that the qualifiers, and would also cater for any of the kind of issues that require the group.

David Markwell: the EXPR<> approach is a close call in my mind. There are two reasons why the group and qualifier approach has short term benefits. It is simpler to implement and it is already being used.

Simpler to implement: In the sense that it uses XML as part of the schema.

Already being used: In the UK National Programme and change at this stage would probably cost real money.

Longer term as I am drafting a document on SNOMED CT expressions I can see big attractions in future flexibility. However, flexibility of this sort comes at a cost. Happy to discuss at the WGM as a future but for now the squeezing in of the group is an important step forward.

Cecil: I am concerned about deprecating qualifier due to the uses it has already enjoyed in implementations (mine for one). For backward compatibility, I think David has the right scheme.

Disposition

This is required to support post co-ordinated Snomed, and has been discussed and approved in committee a number of times.


Status

Approved - to be changed in the source

Links

Back to Data Types R2 issues