This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "OO CR050-678 Segment Group End"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{OO Open Change Requests}} {{OO Open V2.8 Change Requests}} Return to OO Change Requests page. {|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 border=...")
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 
== Discussion ==
 
== Discussion ==
 +
*13-Jan-2011
 +
**Suggestion to change to SGB
 +
**Either mandatory in group, or other suggestion to move to Chapter 2 (akin to ADD, DSC segment use).
 +
**Add more clarifying language.
 +
**Motion to accept proposal as amended.  Andrzej Knafel, Ken McCaslin.
 +
***Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 5
 +
**Will move forward to Chapter 2 chairs.
 +
*7-Mar-2011
 +
**Reviewed in I&M.
 +
**General agreement on concept.
 +
**Suggest to have both header and trailer segment as a new order may follow.
 +
**Suggest to adjust name to SGH and SGT.
 +
**Agreed with explicit declaration required in message structure.
 +
**Will review with OO and then circle back with feedback.
 +
*31-Mar-2011
 +
**Motion to accept as proposed and move forward to InM.  Hans Buitendijk, Scott Robertson.
 +
***Suggestion to avoid the problem is to adopt XML encoding – because groups are explicit in the XML encoding - that is unambiguous in that representation.
 +
***If we have the end segment, does that generate an end tag and does that create a problem?
 +
***No further nesting in XML – should not create a problem, but it also is optional, so would not need to be used in XML.
 +
***Against: 0; Abstain: 3; In Favor: 7
 +
*20-Apr-2011 (FO)
 +
**reviewed proposal as of 24-Mar-2011
 +
**seems to work
 +
**although the original intent was to use it for all groups
 +
**this way it is just introduced for this specific problem

Latest revision as of 19:27, 6 July 2011

Return to OO Change Requests page.

Submitted by: Frank Oemig Revision date: <<Date>>
Submitted date: December 21, 2010 Change request ID: OO CR050
Standard/IG: 2.8 Standard Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>>

Issue

See 2.8 change request File:OO CR050-678.doc for problem definition and proposal.

Recommendation

Rationale

Discussion

  • 13-Jan-2011
    • Suggestion to change to SGB
    • Either mandatory in group, or other suggestion to move to Chapter 2 (akin to ADD, DSC segment use).
    • Add more clarifying language.
    • Motion to accept proposal as amended. Andrzej Knafel, Ken McCaslin.
      • Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 5
    • Will move forward to Chapter 2 chairs.
  • 7-Mar-2011
    • Reviewed in I&M.
    • General agreement on concept.
    • Suggest to have both header and trailer segment as a new order may follow.
    • Suggest to adjust name to SGH and SGT.
    • Agreed with explicit declaration required in message structure.
    • Will review with OO and then circle back with feedback.
  • 31-Mar-2011
    • Motion to accept as proposed and move forward to InM. Hans Buitendijk, Scott Robertson.
      • Suggestion to avoid the problem is to adopt XML encoding – because groups are explicit in the XML encoding - that is unambiguous in that representation.
      • If we have the end segment, does that generate an end tag and does that create a problem?
      • No further nesting in XML – should not create a problem, but it also is optional, so would not need to be used in XML.
      • Against: 0; Abstain: 3; In Favor: 7
  • 20-Apr-2011 (FO)
    • reviewed proposal as of 24-Mar-2011
    • seems to work
    • although the original intent was to use it for all groups
    • this way it is just introduced for this specific problem