Re: [COAS-List] Typo? yes; qualifiers from HL7/CEN

[David Forslund <dwf@acl.lanl.gov>]

Larry Hamel writes:
 > Dave,
 > 
 > At 09:53 PM 4/3/99 -0700, David W. Forslund wrote:
 > >
 > >ObservedSubjectIdPerson in section 6.4
 > >vs ObservedSubjectId in section 5.2.2?
 > 
 > that's a typo--lack of suitable tab stop.  should be
 > 	typedef DSObservationAccess::ObservedSubjectId  Person
 > 

I saw that when I checked the IDL directly.

 > >
 > >Should the ObservationQualifiers discussed in 4.2.6 all have corresponding
 > >definitions in section 12.5?
 > >
 > 
 > section 4.2.6 provides a list of possible qualifiers, but we specifically
 > decided not to provide IDL definitions for these (reversing a previous
 > decision in previous COAS drafts).  many of the items in 4.2.6 are provided
 > by HL7 in the examples in section 12.5, and others are probably covered by
 > reusing HL7 definitions.
 >

The problem in my mind is whether there we will achieve sufficient
interoperability between servers without getting a larger list from the
HL7 or CEN definitions into the document. If none are required to be
supported, it isn't clear there will be any interoperability between
COAS servers.  Also, is the data defined by these qualifiers sufficient
unambiguous from the HL7 or CEN spec?  Do I assume that the values from
some of these qualifiers are then in HL7 segments which must be parsed
with an HL7 parser, or are they further broken down into atomic HL7
pieces? 

Does this question make sense to you?

Thanks,

Dave
 > we're hoping that HL7 and CEN can provide all necessary data definitions.
 > if not, we'll need to revisit this issue in a future revision. 
 > 
 > again, thanks for the detailed feedback!
 > 
 > larry