Difference between revisions of "Participation sequence number"
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{CDA R3 | + | {{CDA R3 Approved Proposals}} |
Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page. | Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== Issue == | == 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). | 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). | ||
| − | + | ===Severity === | |
| + | Low: This is not a critical issue. | ||
== Recommendation == | == Recommendation == | ||
| Line 30: | Line 31: | ||
== Resolution == | == Resolution == | ||
| − | ( | + | March 9, 2010: More information needed. Committee doesn't understand why sequenceNumber is needed for ALL participants and act relationships in header (such as on legal authenticator). |
| + | |||
| + | April 13, 2010: Will add priorityNumber to CDA Header's generic participant clone (along with an example of how it might be used for NOK). Clinical statement requirements are covered by R3 RIM-based body. Other uses of priorityNumber and sequenceNumber in the header are rejected at this point for lack of use case. Opposed: 0; Abstain: 0; In favor: 7. | ||
Latest revision as of 20:27, 13 April 2010
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>> |
Contents
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).
Severity
Low: This is not a critical issue.
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. Sequencing is available for "organizer" type entries but not of for other entries. This proposal would provide more options to those developing implmementation guides.
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
March 9, 2010: More information needed. Committee doesn't understand why sequenceNumber is needed for ALL participants and act relationships in header (such as on legal authenticator).
April 13, 2010: Will add priorityNumber to CDA Header's generic participant clone (along with an example of how it might be used for NOK). Clinical statement requirements are covered by R3 RIM-based body. Other uses of priorityNumber and sequenceNumber in the header are rejected at this point for lack of use case. Opposed: 0; Abstain: 0; In favor: 7.
