Difference between revisions of "Datatypes R2 Issue 77"
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Would you argue for removing codeSystemName as well? I think it would be a mistake to remove this field. | Would you argue for removing codeSystemName as well? I think it would be a mistake to remove this field. | ||
It would be a negative ballot magnet too. Although I think that the intent of the definition is #1, I am happy to change the definition to #2. --[[User:GrahameGrieve|GrahameGrieve]] 06:36, 1 May 2007 (CDT) | It would be a negative ballot magnet too. Although I think that the intent of the definition is #1, I am happy to change the definition to #2. --[[User:GrahameGrieve|GrahameGrieve]] 06:36, 1 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I would indeed argue for getting rid of codeSystemName. The problem is it is unsafe. Also, it is optional anyway (meaning when you really need it it's not going to be there). I know it would cause panic, but I think that life with it is worth than without. I fully expect to loose that argument. [[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] 06:50, 1 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Links == | == Links == | ||
Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]] | Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]] | ||
Revision as of 11:50, 1 May 2007
Contents
Data Types Issue 77: II.assigningAuthorityName use not clear
Introduction
The existing definition of assigningAuthorityName is tautological and doesn't actually indicate what "assigning authority" actually is. There are two possible interpretations:
1. The name of the legal organization responsible for issuing the identifier. This will usually be associated in some way with the II.root, but not always and the specific relationship isn't necessarily clear.
2. The name associated directly with the 'namespace' represented by the OID root. Essentially this would be a displayName that would function in a manner similar to CD.codeSystemName in that it could be displayed to users in place of the OID, while the OID would be used for system processing.
? backward compatible.
Discussion
--Lmckenzi 10:27, 30 April 2007 (CDT): If the use represents #1, then there may still be a use-case for #2. At a minimum, people need to know which use is appropriate.
Well there is a 3rd option: delete it alltogether. I feel that it is unsafe to send these things (incl. assigningAuthorityName, codeSystemName, and even CD.displayName), because implementers are tempted to rely on these names for processing. Even displaying to the end-user is not safe, because you display one thing and the code/oid may mean something else (with no way to check!). But that said definitely the answer to this specific item should be #2, but I like to discuss #3 also (drop it because it's unsafe.) It would be a mistake to do #1. Gschadow 06:12, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Would you argue for removing codeSystemName as well? I think it would be a mistake to remove this field. It would be a negative ballot magnet too. Although I think that the intent of the definition is #1, I am happy to change the definition to #2. --GrahameGrieve 06:36, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
- I would indeed argue for getting rid of codeSystemName. The problem is it is unsafe. Also, it is optional anyway (meaning when you really need it it's not going to be there). I know it would cause panic, but I think that life with it is worth than without. I fully expect to loose that argument. Gschadow 06:50, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Links
Back to Data Types R2 issues
