OO CR062-711 Barcodes
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Return to OO Change Requests page.
|Submitted by: Jose Costa Teixeira||Revision date: <<Revision Date>>|
|Submitted date: May 19, 2011||Change request ID: OO CR062|
|Standard/IG: 2.8 Standard||Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>>|
See 2.8 change request File:OO CR062.doc for problem definition and proposal.
Recommended Action Items
- Change from “Barcode” to “Tag”
- Add to RXA and RXG new field, instead of changing.
- Add to RXD
- EI data type, repeat.
- Motion to accept modified proposal per above bullets. Patrick Loyd, Debbie Bogert
- Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 6
- We have a couple of suggestions for this one.
- First, we think we need to change the field name from "nnn Barcode Identifier" to "nnn Tag Identifier" to be able to cover barcode, rfid, or any other tag identifier that may come about.
- Rather than changing the RXG-25 and RXA-25 fields, we accepted a motion to add a new field to all three segments with the characteristics you proposed with adjusted name. The rational is that the identification at hand is not CWE and EI is not backwards compatible to CWE.
- We need to actually determine whether this means whether to deprecate RXG-25 and RXA-25.
- Scott Robertson: Do you recall from the origins of these two fields whether they intent to point to a type or catalog item? Or were they supposed to point to a package/lot/batchh/whatever, i.e., an actual instance? We think the intent was the latter and we should never have used CWE. If true, we can deprecate, if not, we need to update the description.
- Discussion with Jose indicates that we need type identification
- Is this solution sufficient to solve the Serial Number lot/batch number?
- Regarding existing RXG-25and RXA-25
- Intent was to use the RXG and RXA fields for either type or instance.
- Based on feedback so far, best to leave this field for the “type” purpose.
- Scott will provide clarifying language to RXG.25 and RXA.25 as part of V2.8.