OMG Issue 18473: DocumentURI shouldn't be mandatory in ResourceVersionDescription

[hsolbrig]

The DocumentURI was intended to differentiate situations where there were potentially multiple sources of the same version of a resource (e.g. SNOMED CT 20120731 from RF1, RF2, RRF or Owl). This is the exception, rather than the rule, and the DocumentURI field should be made optional for clarity.

http://www.omg.org/issues/cts2-rtf#Issue18473

[cendle]

Reason For Change

The DocumentURI was intended to differentiate situations where there were potentially multiple sources of the same version of a resource (e.g. SNOMED CT 20120731 from RF1, RF2, RRF or Owl). This is the exception, rather than the rule, and the DocumentURI field should be made optional for clarity.

Severity: Minor

Proposed Resolution (PIM)

* Change Location 1

 Document "CTS2 - Core Model Elements, v1.0"
 Section 2.7.2
 Page 40
 Figure 2.17  

* Change Description 1

 Updated diagram in Figure 2.17
 Old Diagram:

 New Diagram:
 Update attribute "documentURI :DocumentURI" to indicate that it is optional.

* Change Location 2

 Document "CTS2 - Core Model Elements, v1.0"
 Section 2.7.1.3
 Page 38
 Figure 2.16

* Change Description 2

 Updated diagram in Figure 2.16
 Old Diagram:

 New Diagram:
 Update attribute "documentURI :DocumentURI" to indicate that it is optional.

Proposed Resolution (PSM)

* Change Location

Core.xsd

* Change Description

View changes: https://github.com/cts2/cts2-specification/commit/a911d87e231abd2588e329f869e492bd246a4e4c

Proposed Revised Text

NA