V2.8 CWE Issues
And another thing that has widespread impact on both slides and the examples scattered in the chapters of the spec, including the datatypes chapter, is this little gem in the CWE definition on page 27 in 2.A.13.3 for CWE.3 - second sentence:
As of v2.7 this component is required when CWE.1 is populated and CWE.14 is not populated.
This affects examples throughout our slides and chapters. We have lots of datatypes with Administrative Sex, which is now a CWE, as a component. For instance, RFR, where the 2nd component is CWE. An example in the section is:
b) A normal range that depends on sex, such as Hgb, is transmitted as: |13.5&18^M~12.0 & 16^F| which, according to the articulated rule on CWE, really should rather be:
|13.5&18^M&&HL70001~12.0 & 16^F^^HL70001|
This thing, especially for Sex code which is now CWE with this new rule, I think has huge and widespread impact. All examples all over the place with PID, where only a single character has been shown for the Sex code, now must be updated to the character plus the CWE.3; is this desired? Is this realized? Do we need to do something about this? Does this mean that virtually all of our examples and slides now are non-compliant because the violate this little gem in the CWE.3 explanation? Patrick Loyd: To the CWE.3 issue; after re-checking the actual langauge in the standard....
I like the requirement for CWE.3 be populated when CWE.1 is present; and I do think the examples in the slides should be fixed. I can take that on in the next week before slides are due for the January WGM (depending on what you fixed in the last round of corrections).
I would think any corrections to the examples in the v2.7 Standard itself make their way into the v2.7 errata document. Not sure about corrections in v2.7.1; but I would doubt these were corrected in that version.