eHDSI - Issues
Select object
Results (1 / 1)
Id Issue Status Priority Type Date Assigned To Label
275Change the Cardinality of the id and text elements according to the IHE PCCFeedback neededNormalChange Request2018-06-11 10:24:17Mathias Ghys
Change RequestChange the Cardinality of the id and text elements according to the IHE PCC
StatusFeedback needed
Last Tracking2018-06-11 10:24:17  by  Mathias Ghys
Current AssigneeMathias Ghys
Current Labels
 (TBA) To be approved 
Allergies And Intolerances (
Template1. (2013-12-20) Allergies And Intolerances
TrackingFeedback needed2018-06-11 10:24:17: Tracking by Mathias Ghys
Dear Giorgio, thank you for your feedback. This is highly appreciated.

I always create tickets for the things I want to change where I don't feel 100% confident, and ask for feedback from the semantic experts. 
This is one of these cases. I changed the issue status to "Feedback needed" and Label "(TBA) To be approved".

If I understand it correctly, we make the following distinction:

  • specialization: we modify an existing template (in this case the IHE PCC template) and add some self-defined elements or we add some additional restrictions to existing elements (as been decided in previous project phases)
  • adaptation: we use an existing template as a base but add/modify elements so that the template is not following the rules of the original template anymore.
From the definition of the templateId: "Use of the templateId indicates that the CDA instance conforms to the constraints specified by each templateId referenced as well as to the standard CDA schema" (Principles of Health Interoperability)

As you mentioned, I also noticed the fact that in a lot of cases the templateId is specified, even when the template is not conform to the constraints specified by the referenced template.

I think there are 2 problems that have to be fixed:
  1. Some eHDSI reuse the exisiting OID from the IHE PCC templates. This is just wrong. The templates should receive eHDSI specific template IDs.
  2. In my opinion, no template IDs can be specified if the template is not a specialization of the template. The fact if a template is an adaptation/specialization is described in the description.
I don't see a problem in just removing the template IDs in the case of an adaptation, since validation won't fail the CDA document if the template ID is still mentioned, but in that case, at least the templates are correctly described. Another option is to just make them conform to the referenced templates, but I don't think this is the way to go, since in this case we are reverting changes that have been made in previous project phases (like the choice you mentioned where the choice of epSOS was not to impose that entries would be linked to the section text)

What do you think?
TrackingOpen2018-06-08 13:12:42: Tracking by Giorgio Cangioli
Giorgio's friendly suggestions: (a) evaluate carefully the reasons of the choices and do not just say align to xyz. (b) consider that there is still an unresolved problem with the template IDs in the current eHDSI specifications. There are several cases in which IHE PCC template IDs are used, even if the templates are not the IHE PCC templates and even not specialization of them. This is one of these cases.

One of the choice of epSOS was not to impose that entries would be linked to the section text. Because this linkage is not available in the 95% of the cases (at least at that time). This is instead required by the IHE PCC templates and this is the reason why you have entry.text 1..1 M for observations.  (I wonder if the fix should be text 0..1 R )
Similar considerations of the IDs.

In the 99% of the cases eHDSI templates are adaption and not specialization of  the IHE PCC. But this is wrongly reflected in the template ID used.

This is an old known problem that I have the impression that has not been yet resolved. This has implication in the validation of the templates (because you refer to templates you are not conformant to...)

I suggest to fix the real problem instead of attempting to by-pass it changing cardinalities.

Assignment2018-06-08 11:03:45: Assigned To Mathias Ghys by Mathias Ghys
TrackingOpen2018-06-08 11:03:44: Tracking by Mathias Ghys

This template is a subtype of the Problem Entry, and so must also confirm to the rules of the problem entry, which has the template identifier of This is an OID from the IHE PCC that is duplicated by an eHDSI template. But from the description, I understand that the templateId is referring to the IHE PCC Problem Entry. There the hl7:id and hl7:text are 1 … 1 M. Then I don't see why the hl7:id and hl7:text are 0 … * R and 1 … 1 R .


- Lets make this template compatible with the IHE PCC Problem template and change the cardinality and conformance

Further explanation:


PreviewCodeHTML colorDisplay NameDescription
TBATBATo be approved
To be discussed and approved
M1M1Milestone 1
Milestone 1 – before the EXPAND-athon 9-12 December 2015 Lisbon
M2M2Milestone 2
Milestone 2 – final results to be delived at the end of EXPAND
M3M3Milestone 3
Milestone 3 – end of the HL7 International Project
M4M4Milestone 4
Milestone 4 – for consideration in the future / desiderata
WJWJChanges Word/JIRA
Changes in the Word Specification/Open a JIRA issue
Template-ID changes throughout the specification