This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Master File/Registry Control Act Wrapper"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
There is an inconsistency in the MPI example and, I think, a problem of interpretation:
+
The problem: if the external id's supplied to the MPI originated from different organizations then they reflect the fact that the entity is a patient in two different contexts.  To put it another way: the person in question is a patient  twice-over.  The identifiers are therefore not synonymous.  [An interesting wrinkle on this that the role instances could in fact have the *same* numeric identifier but issued by different scopers (with different OID's).]  The id created by the MPI reflects neither of these scopers, but is some other kind of artifact entirely.  Arguably, it is not even a 'patient' role id. [[User:Robert grant|Robert grant]] 01:12, 2 Jun 2006 (CDT)
 
+
:I agree, it is probably more of an "IdentifiedEntity" role. That is however not the entry point of the PatientLivingsubject registry model.. Note that the wiki page distinguishes a couple of different scenario's (1. return information based on some role id, 2. return information based on some role that has a specified scoper). There definitely still are open issues in this area. [[User:Rene spronk|Rene spronk]] 06:19, 2 Jun 2006 (CDT)
"The receiver of MPI messages should therefore consider the entire list comprised of (PatientRole.id 1..1, OtherIDs.id 0..*) to be identifiers for the scoping person, PatientRole.id should not be ignored 8even though mostly it is an MPI internal ID). "
 
 
 
In fact the identifiers are for the "player", rather than scoper.
 
 
 
The problem: if the external id's supplied to the MPI originated from different organizations then they reflect the fact that the entity is a patient in two different contexts.  To put it another way: the person in question is a patient  twice-over.  The identifiers are therefore not synonymous.  [An interesting wrinkle on this that the role instances could in fact have the *same* numeric identifier but issued by different scopers (with different OID's).]  The id created by the MPI reflects neither of these scopers, but is some other kind of artifact entirely.  Arguably, it is not even a 'patient' role id.
 
 
 
[[User:Robert grant|Robert grant]] 01:12, 2 Jun 2006 (CDT)
 

Latest revision as of 11:19, 2 June 2006

The problem: if the external id's supplied to the MPI originated from different organizations then they reflect the fact that the entity is a patient in two different contexts. To put it another way: the person in question is a patient twice-over. The identifiers are therefore not synonymous. [An interesting wrinkle on this that the role instances could in fact have the *same* numeric identifier but issued by different scopers (with different OID's).] The id created by the MPI reflects neither of these scopers, but is some other kind of artifact entirely. Arguably, it is not even a 'patient' role id. Robert grant 01:12, 2 Jun 2006 (CDT)

I agree, it is probably more of an "IdentifiedEntity" role. That is however not the entry point of the PatientLivingsubject registry model.. Note that the wiki page distinguishes a couple of different scenario's (1. return information based on some role id, 2. return information based on some role that has a specified scoper). There definitely still are open issues in this area. Rene spronk 06:19, 2 Jun 2006 (CDT)