Issue 2671: "Relationship to PMF" (pids-rtf2) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Summary: Issue: "Relationship to PMF" What is the complete and useful normative relationship of PIDS to the Party Mangement Facility (PMF)? On my first reading of it, I believe the PMF spec has already addressed part of it by relating their QualifiedID to the PIDS QualifiedPersonID (both are an identifier value qualified by its Domain Id). I would add that the Property Lists by which the PMF records attribution of a party can be mapped to PIDS traits, although I wonder if we could be even more specific like "Trait Names that match property names (if they are Namespace-qualified) are understood to correspond. If this is agreed, then we have a formalized linkage of not only the IDs but the Traits, and the basis for integration between the two without coupling.. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 28, 1999: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Reply-To: "Jon Farmer" From: "Jon Farmer" To: "pids-rtf2" Subject: We can start now! Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 11:23:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: 3f0fe8ee008d570d7e743f2a003d6866 Hello all, Our mailing list was broken at the omg until today so that nothing could propagate out. Please understand therefore that the silence was not evidence of lack of zeal for this thing. Here is our timeline: 3/26/99 Establish RTF in Philadelphia 7/31/99 Comment Deadline 8/27/99 Report Deadline in San Jose Let's now generate the issues list! The rtf can only deal in changes that fix errors or add clarification. Therefore for each issue anyone of submits, we must be prepared to successfully cast it as such. For example, here is the first few issues I want to submit: Issue: "Relationship to PMF" What is the complete and useful normative relationship of PIDS to the Party Mangement Facility (PMF)? On my first reading of it, I believe the PMF spec has already addressed part of it by relating their QualifiedID to the PIDS QualifiedPersonID (both are an identifier value qualified by its Domain Id). I would add that the Property Lists by which the PMF records attribution of a party can be mapped to PIDS traits, although I wonder if we could be even more specific like "Trait Names that match property names (if they are Namespace-qualified) are understood to correspond. If this is agreed, then we have a formalized linkage of not only the IDs but the Traits, and the basis for integration between the two without coupling.. Reply-To: "Jon Farmer" From: "Jon Farmer" To: Subject: issue 2671 - relationship to PMF Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:34:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: ld7e9jTQd9["Fe9CeP!! The PMF uses CosPropertyService interfaces for property manipulation. These properties are not explicitly namespace-qualified. typedef string PropertyName; struct Property { PropertyName property_name; any property_value; }; Therefore even if we qualify the PIDS HL7 2.3. trait names under a naming root, we will not be able to use TQS (LQS).to map between PIDS traits and PMF properties. How useful or risky is it to specify in an appendix of PIDS and/or PMF, that PMF property names that match the PIDS HL7 trait names are assumed to correspond? Note that since each of the predefined HL7 PIDs trait names begin with "HL7/", I think there is very little risk of name-colliding with locally conceived names in an invalid way; That is, where they match, they are supposed to match!