Profile decription may be inconsistent with the signature cardinality; clarify how "must support" [0..1] signature should be populated. - HRex #98

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive
    • Priority: Medium
    • US Da Vinci HRex (FHIR)
    • STU3
    • Financial Mgmt
    • Profile overview [deprecated]
    • Hide

      "Support" means the same thing here as it does throughout the implementation guide (and as used in FHIR generally).  "Must support" does not indicate that the element must be present, only that systems must be capable of sending and consuming and processing the data if a signature is actually present.  We have language in HRex that points to the FHIR spec to further explain "must support".

      Show
      "Support" means the same thing here as it does throughout the implementation guide (and as used in FHIR generally).  "Must support" does not indicate that the element must be present, only that systems must be capable of sending and consuming and processing the data if a signature is actually present.  We have language in HRex that points to the FHIR spec to further explain "must support".
    • Robert Dieterle / May Terry: 7-0-1

      Existing Wording: It also requires implementers to support signature

      Proposed Wording: It also supports the use of electronic signature.

      Comment:

      The cardinality of the "signature" is [0..1] so it's misleading to say it's required. The resource could be missing the signature and will be valid/pass validation.

      Summary:

      Profile decription may be inconsistent with the signature cardinality; clarify how "must support" [0..1] signature should be populated.

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Ioana Singureanu
            Ioana Singureanu
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: