ihe_iua extension example does not conform to text?

[oliveregger]

No description provided.

[JohnMoehrke]

I don't know this well enough. I added Joost and Martin to review.

[msmock]

I agree to the proposed change.

[msmock]

I agree to the change.

[joostreuzel]

The changes make role and purpose singular. Multiplicity was indeed not well defined. Would singular use not be too restrictive? A subject may have several roles in an organization context. Similarly, a token may be used for several purposes? As an alternative we may clarify in the spec the multiplicity of the fields?

[oliveregger]

The changes make role and purpose singular. Multiplicity was indeed not well defined.

I read the requesting role and purpose singular (see #75), the representation as Coding is also singular (otherwise it would need to be a CodeableConcept). This PR tries to bring in the example congruent to text.

Would singular use not be too restrictive? A subject may have several roles in an organization >context. Similarly, a token may be used for several purposes? As an alternative we may clarify in the >spec the multiplicity of the fields?

According to https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/TF/Volume2/ITI-40.html I intepret purposeOfUse as 0..1 but subject-roles could indeed be mutiple values.

[joostreuzel]

This PR tries to bring in the example congruent to text.

That is well-understood. However, to align the example with the text, augmentations can be made in two directions: we can improve the example or improve the text...

My proposal would be to:

• keep the purposeOfUse singular, as in line with ITI40, and with a corrected example as suggested by @oliveregger
• allow for multiple roles. I think we can encode the roles as an array of Coding as was done in the original example. We would need to update the text to clarify this. I don't think a CodeableConcept is needed as that would bring something new to the table: a text representation of a role (which would be singular again).

[JohnMoehrke]

@jlamy -- please weigh in on this. i think we had a similar problem observed in CareQuality. Although I think that one was SAML (XUA), the solutions should be as similar as we can make them.

[JohnMoehrke]

Note to ALL -- IUA is now published. so this issue must come to a conclusion using the CP system. We can fully document it in an Issue with a Pull-Request. but our final decision needs to go into a CP ballot.

[joostreuzel]

@JohnMoehrke What would be your proposal then? Update the non-normative example as suggested by @oliveregger, and open a seperate issue to update the multiplicity and have that go through the ballot?

[JohnMoehrke]

IHE supplements are published as a single publication. There is no difference in how a normative change is done vs informative. Even Spelling fixes are documented in a CP.

So, this issue and pull-request are the proper mechanism for specific details.... What I am simply pointing out is that the pull-request can NOT be merged until the change goes thru a proper CP ballot. For that CP ballot, we will need a simple WORD document CP pointing at this Issue and Pull-Request, so that the governance of the CP ballot can progress.

[oliveregger]

Just wanted to add a CP for this, but have seen that @lynnfel already has done it with CP-ITI-IUA-Issue-75, thanks a lot!

[oliveregger]

• allow for multiple roles. I think we can encode the roles as an array of Coding as was done in the original example. We would need to update the text to clarify this. I don't think a CodeableConcept is needed as that would bring something new to the table: a text representation of a role (which would be singular again).

@joostreuzel agree, an array of Coding would be better, a CodeableConcept is the wrong approach since the codings in there would not have the same semantic.

[oliveregger]

@joostreuzel and @msmock this CP will be discussed tomorrow at ITI - CP Processing, do you have time to join? Thursday, May 13th, 12:00:00 PM, ITI - CP Processing - Time - Central Daylight Time (GMT-5)
https://himss.zoom.us/j/91068642326

[lynnfel]

CP discussion determined that subject_role and purpose of use may be encoded with multiple values. Syntax details to be written...

The CP discussion on 18-May-2021 determined that the resolution will be determined in the context of this pull request , and when the solution is determined, it will be represented in CP-ITI-1255 for the purpose of CP balloting.

[JohnMoehrke]

CP is still in progress