Closed lynnfel closed 2 years ago
I think appendix M already does address the three way equivilance.
wouldn't the resolution of #35 also satisfy this?
I agree that Appx M is fine. Then, you can update https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/TF/Volume1/ch-24.html#24.1 to point to Appx M, and either use the editor box mechanism to make the parallel updates to PDQ and PDQV3, or (when the text is written for PIXm), I can write a CP.
Issue solution #35 and #29 have resolved this.
Section Number https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/PDQm/actors_and_transactions.html
Issue PDQm points back to PDQ and PDQv3 transactions as equivalent PDQV3 points to PDQ transaction as equivalent in Table 24.1-2 https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/TF/Volume1/ch-24.html#24.1 PDQ has no similar info
Proposed Change Do we make them consistent or remove this mapping?
How about just pointing to the content we moved to Appendix M? https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/TF/Volume2/ch-M.html#M.4
When we answer this, consider making the same choice for the PIX family, and then create a traditional CP.
Priority: