Stream: patient administration WG
Topic: GF#13495: Location.address comment
Simone Heckmann (Feb 08 2018 at 15:35):
Details:
Location.address has a comment that says "This was kept as 0..1 as there is no use property on the address, so wouldn't be able to identify different address types"
Since Address.use does exist, this comment seems incorrect.
See GF#13495 for full discussion...
Simone Heckmann (Feb 08 2018 at 15:46):
Submitted by @Michelle (Moseman) Miller
Simone Heckmann (Feb 08 2018 at 16:18):
Here's the link to the Location.address element:
http://build.fhir.org/location-definitions.html#Location.address
I think I can sum up the follow up comments on GForge to "The comment should be removed, however the cardinality should remain at 0..1"
Irma Jongeneel (Feb 08 2018 at 16:28):
should I make motion to accept the change in the comment? Or is this done in the call?
Simone Heckmann (Feb 08 2018 at 16:36):
I think we could propose a resolution here and then put it to vote in the next call. We can give thumps up to the proposal to indicate agreement :)
Simone Heckmann (Feb 08 2018 at 16:37):
I think we just need to decide whether we want to completely remove the comment or replace it with another comment that explains the reason for the 0..1 cardinality.
Irma Jongeneel (Feb 08 2018 at 16:43):
I think we should explain why we have the mandatory binding to the use
Brian Postlethwaite (Feb 15 2018 at 22:12):
That's in the datatype, which is not in our resource definition.
I'm happy just to remove the old inaccurate comment, and leave cardinality alone. (another address should be another instance)
Simone Heckmann (Feb 16 2018 at 08:28):
:+1: with mod: Add "(another address should be another instance)" to the Location.address element definition
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
