Update Consolidated CDA Templates for Clinical Notes (US Realm) DSTU … #26
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…R2.1.sch When we check for R1.1 templateIds, we currently check against a specific set of R2.1 templateId root + extension combos and then make sure that there's a matching R1.1 templateId. But this doesn't seem particularly robust against future changes. Suppose we bump the extension for one of these templates; we'd need to either have two copies of it (one with the old extension and one with the new) or else we'd lose the ability to make sure that the old root+extension combo still had a matching R1.1 templateId! I think the better thing to do is to say "in a C-CDA document, an R1.1 templateId with ANY extension at all needs to have a matching extensionless R1.1 templateId." That solves the versioning problem, simplifies the logic, and feels more or less like what C-CDA's trying to go for anyway!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
…R2.1.sch
When we check for R1.1 templateIds, we currently check against a specific set of R2.1 templateId root + extension combos and then make sure that there's a matching R1.1 templateId.
But this doesn't seem particularly robust against future changes. Suppose we bump the extension for one of these templates; we'd need to either have two copies of it (one with the old extension and one with the new) or else we'd lose the ability to make sure that the old root+extension combo still had a matching R1.1 templateId!
I think the better thing to do is to say "in a C-CDA document, an R1.1 templateId with ANY extension at all needs to have a matching extensionless R1.1 templateId." That solves the versioning problem, simplifies the logic, and feels more or less like what C-CDA's trying to go for anyway!