This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Participation sequence number"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
== Rationale == | == Rationale == | ||
| − | Needed for Consent Directive representations. | + | Needed for Consent Directive representations and any other information specification that requires the enforcement of a specific order. |
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
Revision as of 04:54, 21 November 2009
Return to SDTC page; Return to CDA R3 Formal Proposals page.
| Submitted by: Ioana Singureanu | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: 11/17/2009 | Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>> |
Issue
Currently there is no way to specify the order in which participations or act relationships are to be processed. In some cases the order/priority is relevant to processing definitional elements (e.g. privacy rules).
Recommendation
- Add "Participation.sequenceNumber:INT[0..1]" or "ActRelationship.priorityNumber:INT[0..1]"- to all Participation and ActRelationship instances in the document header and entry/clinical statement.
Rationale
Needed for Consent Directive representations and any other information specification that requires the enforcement of a specific order.
Discussion
The item was introduced during the SDWG meeting - Nov. 17th, 2009.
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
(Resolution is to be recorded here and in the referenced minutes, which are the authoritative source of resolution).
