Difference between revisions of "Talk:1.3.6.1.4.1.19376.1.5.3.1.4.15"
(Minor issue: Added minor issue.) |
(Added an issue.) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
If subject is of type ParticipationTargetSubject, then to be compatible with CDA R2, the typeCode of subject should be SBJ not SUBJ. | If subject is of type ParticipationTargetSubject, then to be compatible with CDA R2, the typeCode of subject should be SBJ not SUBJ. | ||
| + | |||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Fixme | | ||
| + | |||
| + | "The family history organizer shall contain one or more components using the <entryRelationship> element shown above." | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, entryRelationship is not a legal element for an organizer. To retain the COMP typeCode, we suggest that <component> be used here in place of <entryRelationship>. (This may have been the original intent.) | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 15:33, 18 January 2008
-->>
(This is more of a request for more information than a bug report.)
This entry makes use of an <sdtc:id> element which is an extension to CDA R2. However Appendix C of PCC-TF which defines the extensions to CDA R2 doesn't mention the use of <sdtc:id> as a child of <cda:subject> or <cda:playingEntity> (just as a child of <sdtc:patient>). Could we have more information on how this extension is defined (or a link to where that definition occurs)? Thanks.
<<--
-->>
If subject is of type ParticipationTargetSubject, then to be compatible with CDA R2, the typeCode of subject should be SBJ not SUBJ.
<<--
-->>
"The family history organizer shall contain one or more components using the <entryRelationship> element shown above."
However, entryRelationship is not a legal element for an organizer. To retain the COMP typeCode, we suggest that <component> be used here in place of <entryRelationship>. (This may have been the original intent.)
<<--