This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "OO CR033-653 Taxonomy for Species in OM4"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
* 24-Jun-2010 | * 24-Jun-2010 | ||
**Why do we need this if we already have OM1. Need justification as it appears to be a duplicate. | **Why do we need this if we already have OM1. Need justification as it appears to be a duplicate. | ||
| − | + | *** Taxonomy in OM1 indicates that the test itself is only applicable in specific species (or groups of species, etc., thus the word "taxonomy" rather than "species"). Taxonomy in OM4 means that the specified specimen type is appropriate in the listed taxonomy. The classic example is avian influenza testing in which most birds are tested from pharyngeal swabs whereas waterfowl shed virus in the gastrointestinal rather than respiratory tract and are therefore tested with cloacal swabs. Same test. | |
| − | + | ** Might there be non-species specific testing? | |
| − | + | *** Yes, and this is probably the weakest point in my proposal. If taxonomy is not provided in either OM1 or OM4, it may have one of two different meanings based on the context in which messaging is taking place. In a purely human context (99.999% of the time) it means "applies to humans." In a veterinary messaging context it means "may be applied to any species." But this is largely parallel to the well accepted usage in PID where I don't believe anyone ever populates PID.35 with "Homo sapiens." | |
** Looks like it should be OM4-18, not OM4-15. Do we need to lock in, or not? If so, need to review sequence with other proposals. | ** Looks like it should be OM4-18, not OM4-15. Do we need to lock in, or not? If so, need to review sequence with other proposals. | ||
| − | + | *** I completely agree. I may have been working from an obsolete draft. The intention here, and in OM1 is to be at the end of the segment, where ever that ends up. So don't lock it in until final draft, "OM4.last" is fine with me. If we pre-adopt we'll warn developers that it will likely change. | |
== Recommended Action Items == | == Recommended Action Items == | ||
Revision as of 13:57, 1 July 2010
Return to OO Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: Michael Martin | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: 27-May-2010 | Change request ID: OO CR033 |
| Standard/IG: Standard | Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>> |
Issue
See File:OO CR033-653.doc for problem definition and proposal. See also OO CR027-647 Taxononomy for Species in OM1.
Recommendation
Rationale
Discussion
- 24-Jun-2010
- Why do we need this if we already have OM1. Need justification as it appears to be a duplicate.
- Taxonomy in OM1 indicates that the test itself is only applicable in specific species (or groups of species, etc., thus the word "taxonomy" rather than "species"). Taxonomy in OM4 means that the specified specimen type is appropriate in the listed taxonomy. The classic example is avian influenza testing in which most birds are tested from pharyngeal swabs whereas waterfowl shed virus in the gastrointestinal rather than respiratory tract and are therefore tested with cloacal swabs. Same test.
- Might there be non-species specific testing?
- Yes, and this is probably the weakest point in my proposal. If taxonomy is not provided in either OM1 or OM4, it may have one of two different meanings based on the context in which messaging is taking place. In a purely human context (99.999% of the time) it means "applies to humans." In a veterinary messaging context it means "may be applied to any species." But this is largely parallel to the well accepted usage in PID where I don't believe anyone ever populates PID.35 with "Homo sapiens."
- Looks like it should be OM4-18, not OM4-15. Do we need to lock in, or not? If so, need to review sequence with other proposals.
- I completely agree. I may have been working from an obsolete draft. The intention here, and in OM1 is to be at the end of the segment, where ever that ends up. So don't lock it in until final draft, "OM4.last" is fine with me. If we pre-adopt we'll warn developers that it will likely change.
- Why do we need this if we already have OM1. Need justification as it appears to be a duplicate.
