Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ITI-65 structureDefinitions should forbid entryUUID #167

Closed
JohnMoehrke opened this issue Sep 2, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

ITI-65 structureDefinitions should forbid entryUUID #167

JohnMoehrke opened this issue Sep 2, 2022 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working the way intended.

Comments

@JohnMoehrke
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@JohnMoehrke JohnMoehrke self-assigned this Oct 3, 2022
@JohnMoehrke JohnMoehrke added the bug Something isn't working the way intended. label Oct 3, 2022
@JohnMoehrke
Copy link
Contributor Author

ITI-Tech committee discussion -> change sentence

The Documet Recipient shall create missing entryUUID values where necessary to satisfy XDS requirements.

to

Except that the Document Source does not need to provide any entryUUID values, as the entryUUID will be populated by the Document Recipient when necessary.

@JohnMoehrke
Copy link
Contributor Author

make change to master and improvements branches

@JohnMoehrke
Copy link
Contributor Author

Given that the entryUUID is a uniquely SOAP ebRegistry attribute. There is no way for a MHD Document Source to be able to generate it. Further in a case that does not have XDS Registry, there is no value to providing one.

@skbhaskarla
Copy link
Contributor

Technically, the MHD 4.2.0 SubmissionSet resource profile StructureDefinition allows an entryUUID, so when this value is present, what is the expected behavior? (In XDS.b, the entryUUID carries a special significance in that, when not symbolic, the registry uses the same entryUUID for the registry object being created.)

Another question, why is now the MHD SubmissionSet uniqueId cardinality allow a minimum of 0? Why was this changed from 1..1 (MHD 4.1.0)?

@JohnMoehrke
Copy link
Contributor Author

I would guess the same rational. In a pure FHIR environment (MHDS) there is no value to these.

@skbhaskarla
Copy link
Contributor

I would guess the same rational. In a pure FHIR environment (MHDS) there is no value to these.

When there is no value, why do these elements exist in the MHD StructureDefinition?

@skbhaskarla
Copy link
Contributor

SubmissionSet uniqueId is a separate question, a value must be provided and cannot be symbolic in XDS.b.

@JohnMoehrke
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think we expected that the Document Recipient that is grouped with Document Sharing Profiles would do the right thing. Trying to define the algorithm is not our goal.
https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/MHD/ITI-65.html#23654131-grouping-with-actors-in-other-document-sharing-profiles

The Document Recipient shall create appropriate metadata from Resources in the FHIR Bundle Resource, including SubmissionSet, DocumentEntry, Folder, and Associations.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working the way intended.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants