Difference between revisions of "June 1, 2005"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
''' Point 5 from May 27 discussion '''
 
''' Point 5 from May 27 discussion '''
 +
<br/>
 
5) Outline of our deliverables to VCDE workspace:
 
5) Outline of our deliverables to VCDE workspace:
  
Line 34: Line 35:
  
 
fields are linked in the messaging layer.
 
fields are linked in the messaging layer.
 +
-----
 +
David - CDE developer needs to be able to specify MV in field, MVR as separate field or neither
  
 
=== Action Items: ===
 
=== Action Items: ===

Revision as of 18:32, 1 June 2005

June 1, 2005 Teleconference

Time: 2:00 to 3:00 PM Eastern Time Convert
Phone #: (877)407-0183
PassCode: 764591#

Attendees:

Discussion

Point 5 from May 27 discussion
5) Outline of our deliverables to VCDE workspace:

a) define a vocabulary of missing value reasons that CDEs can draw

from. This is likely to be a hierarchy.

b) develop recommendations to CDE developers. They will need to wrestle

with MV vs. MVR.

One possibility: include MV (e.g., unknown, not specified) in the

permissible values

And/Or create a linked CDE for the MVR - with values chosen from the

vocabulary in (a).

It seems probable that we will need some way in the caDSR for

linking a CDE with a CDE for the MVR.

c) develop recommendations for the architecture ws on how MV and MVR for

fields are linked in the messaging layer.


David - CDE developer needs to be able to specify MV in field, MVR as separate field or neither

Action Items:

TaskAssigneeDueStatus