IHE: Make Language attribute optional for facilities, specify content

[edjez]

Summary

Currently CSD requires a mandatory Languages element as part of facilities. Based on the requirements of existing Facility Registry implementations, it is not a required field. In addition, the current spec does not describe the Languages entity and its sub fields.

Issue

The CSD Facility object has the following element:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xs:element
maxOccurs="unbounded"
name="facilityLanguage"
type="Languages"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:hfp="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-hasFacetAndProperty"
>
</xs:element>

where Languages is defined as:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xs:complexType
   name="Languages"
   xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
   xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
   xmlns:hfp="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-hasFacetAndProperty">
    <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element name="entityID" type="xs:ID"></xs:element>
        <xs:element name="languageCode" type="xs:string" ></xs:element>
        <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="languageDescription" type="xs:string"></xs:element>
        <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="type" type="xs:string"></xs:element>
        <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="status" type="xs:string"></xs:element>
    </xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>

Languages is a useful field but has not been identified as a required field in any Facility Registry implementation so far.

• It would help to have the Language coding be recommended by the spec

  Recommendation

  1. Make the Languages element of facilities optional, as a coded value list. Define its purpose (e.g. what does it mean? care can be provided in those languages, has workers who natively speak those languages, can provide translation services for those languages, etc). This way also future specs can add purposes to language lists.
  2. Eliminate the sub fields for language (entityID, type, status)
  3. the spec alternatively says "the code system may be specified for the implementer" but then also notes RFC3066 as the coding. Recommend settling on 3066.

     More Information

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt

[djritz]

This was discussed on the 2013-05-31 call. The agreed action will be to relax the facilityLanguage to minOccurs=0 and to add to the front matter of the spec an "open issue" regarding the use cases that will be broken by not having a mandatory language attribute. It will be open to public comment whether it is better to have a mandatory attribute to which one can specify "unknown" as the language or to leave the attribute off and have to figure out how to execute the use case(s) using client side workarounds.

[edjez]

Cool when the new XSD rolls around I'll close this issue too.