Datatypes R2 Issue 105

SC clarifications

Introduction

The abstract and xml its disagree about SC.

The abstract says it has code : CE

the xml its does not allow originalText and translations.

proposal

Change the xml its to clarify that the ST value is the original text. Clarify this in the abstract too.

Regarding translations, no one has complained that translations are not allowed. So we should change the abstract to CV from CE and go to ballot like that.

Disposition

approve this

 For: Grahame, Lloyd, Lee
 Against:
 Abstain:

The dt source has been updated.

Skype thread

SC - does it have originalText and translations or not? [1:26:36 PM] Grahame Grieve says: the abstract claims it is a CE [1:26:51 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: Yup [1:26:53 PM] Grahame Grieve says: but the xml its doesn't allow originalText or trnaslations [1:27:03 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: However, the originalText maps to the text of the ST [1:27:29 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: Essentially it's a twisted CE where originalText is mandatory and the code bits are optional [1:27:49 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: Effectively it's always CWE, with looser rules than usual about when you can get away with just sending originalText [1:28:13 PM] Grahame Grieve says: I love this. Effectively.... are we going to say this stuff, or is it secret to just us? [1:28:36 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: I'm happy to have it said [1:28:38 PM] Grahame Grieve says: and no translations right [1:28:44 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: Yes translations [1:28:46 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: CE allows translations [1:28:59 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: Though I see how that causes grief . . . [1:29:06 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: CV would be easier [1:29:10 PM] Grahame Grieve says: I know CE does. But I'm asking about SC. the xml ITS doesn't. [1:29:29 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: Which means the xml ITS only implements CV [1:29:31 PM] Grahame Grieve says: and I think they are a bad bad idea on SC. So we should change it. I guess this is a proposal.... [1:29:51 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: I get really nervous around CV because it means you can never change value-sets or code systems for a system. [1:29:58 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: And that's not often realistic. [1:30:11 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: If you ever need to change, there'll be a change-over period when you'll need to send both. [1:30:26 PM] Kevin M Coonan, MD says: Remember that translations may have some value...e.g. US mandate to use LOINC in the face of a more global use of SNOMED-CT OE's [1:30:55 PM] Grahame Grieve says: yes, but that's not in scope for discussing SC. SC can't have snomed, linc, etc in scope, it's wrong [1:31:00 PM] Grahame Grieve says: SC is a pretty special case [1:31:39 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: But it *is* possible to change coding systems or even have different coding systems for name parts. [1:32:31 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: The military may have significantly more rigorous and refined prefix codes than a regular hospital. [1:32:57 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: (And I'm not trying to upset you now either ;)) [1:33:32 PM] Grahame Grieve says: but you are. believe me. what a mess. translations in SC, SC with mixed content... [1:33:56 PM] Grahame Grieve says: I'm going to take the position that no one has complained, and change from CE to CV [1:34:03 PM] Grahame Grieve says: at least, propose that [1:34:26 PM] Lloyd McKenzie says: Fair enough. We can fight when/if there's a stronger use-case [1:34:43 PM] Grahame Grieve says: gee that was easy