Datatypes R2 Issue 12

Introduction

Remove the artificial distinction between identity and equality. We do a whole lot of goofy things (like make addresses BAGs instead of SETs because we need to support duplicate addresses with different times.

This would not be backward compatible.

Discussion

DataTypes BOF May 2005: Proposed action: Accept and add equivalence definitions for EN, AD, PQ, CD, possibly others

This is a very far-reaching thing to do. I can agree to EN and AD but it should not be done for PQ and CD. The proposal is not correctly titled, as the whole point about data types is that identity is not different from equality. Anything that looks different between two values and does not factor into the equality relation is logically irrelevant. I am O.K. with revising this, but a sweeping change without further looking at the specific cases is a very bad idea. --Gschadow 01:23, 25 Jun 2006 (CDT)

BOF: Accept and add equivalence definitions for EN, AD, PQ, CD, possibly others

I am against this change. It is very destructive. The ISO ballot has surfaced it and I logged a bunch of negative items on these issues. It is impossible to replace the equal rules with a simple thing that checks for equalness of all properties. Besides our equal definition is backed by ISO 11404. You need to realize that we put in some "properties" which have no semantics (e.g., CD.displayName, II.assigningAuthorityName, etc), they can't factor into the equality, that would be a contradiction. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I oppose any sweeping changes to this. I can only agree to specific fixes of specific issues with the present equal. Even EN/AD is not quite sold for me. Gschadow 18:07, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Status

Proposed

Links

Back to Data Types R2 issues