This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "R2 XML ITS datatypes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== R2 XML ITS Datatypes issues == | == R2 XML ITS Datatypes issues == | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | == XML Representation of collection type and nullFlavor (DAT-001) == | |
| − | + | == XML Representation of SLIST (DAT-002) == | |
| − | + | == Because HL7 UIDs are case sensitive, for use with HL7, the hexadecimal digits A-F in UUIDs must be converted to upper case. – what does this mean for ITS – clarify that ITS can use lowercase (DAT-003) == | |
| − | + | == Type substitutability rules in schema may not match those in the abstract spec. Is SET<ST> specialisable to IVL<SC> (DAT-004) == | |
| − | + | == Regarding the text "must conform to either of the XML Schema data types decimal or double". I have always assumed that REAL values could have an arbitrary number of decimal digits (just link INT) but it doesn't say that anywhere. While xs:decimal does allow an arbitrary number of digits, implementations are allowed to say "I can't handle anything more than 18 digits". Is this a problem? (DAT-005) == | |
| − | + | == What to do about xsi:type on RTO implementations (and why isn’t RTO in the generics) (DAT-006) == | |
| − | + | == which XML attributes can be used (xml:base) (DAT-007) == | |
| − | + | == Address name parts should be of type SC (DAT-008) == | |
| − | + | == (section 4.3.1) surely an R2 issue, but shouldn't the name "Sub-Expression" be harmonized with "comp"? This is the only case of an element/attribute in the ITS having no relation to the name of a property. (DAT-009) == | |
| − | + | == Implementation of GTS frequency code (DAT-010) == | |
| − | + | == It's not possible to state that a home phone number for a patient is not known using the TEL datatype (DAT-011) == | |
| + | == The ITS representation of datatype flavor. (Not solely an ITS problem, but it's one we should try to address in R2.(DAT-012) == | ||
Revision as of 16:09, 5 April 2006
Contents
- 1 R2 XML ITS Datatypes issues
- 2 XML Representation of collection type and nullFlavor (DAT-001)
- 3 XML Representation of SLIST (DAT-002)
- 4 Because HL7 UIDs are case sensitive, for use with HL7, the hexadecimal digits A-F in UUIDs must be converted to upper case. – what does this mean for ITS – clarify that ITS can use lowercase (DAT-003)
- 5 Type substitutability rules in schema may not match those in the abstract spec. Is SET<ST> specialisable to IVL<SC> (DAT-004)
- 6 Regarding the text "must conform to either of the XML Schema data types decimal or double". I have always assumed that REAL values could have an arbitrary number of decimal digits (just link INT) but it doesn't say that anywhere. While xs:decimal does allow an arbitrary number of digits, implementations are allowed to say "I can't handle anything more than 18 digits". Is this a problem? (DAT-005)
- 7 What to do about xsi:type on RTO implementations (and why isn’t RTO in the generics) (DAT-006)
- 8 which XML attributes can be used (xml:base) (DAT-007)
- 9 Address name parts should be of type SC (DAT-008)
- 10 (section 4.3.1) surely an R2 issue, but shouldn't the name "Sub-Expression" be harmonized with "comp"? This is the only case of an element/attribute in the ITS having no relation to the name of a property. (DAT-009)
- 11 Implementation of GTS frequency code (DAT-010)
- 12 It's not possible to state that a home phone number for a patient is not known using the TEL datatype (DAT-011)
- 13 The ITS representation of datatype flavor. (Not solely an ITS problem, but it's one we should try to address in R2.(DAT-012)
