Person Identification Service Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Person Identification Service — Open Issues

  • Acronym: PIDS
  • Issues Count: 29
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
PIDS11-29 Relationship to PMF PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-27 should we reference the recent HL7 SIGMPI harmonization with PIDS PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-25 how to report database-or-infrastructure-level erros as exceptions PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-26 Question or issue regarding collaboration diagrams PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-28 using XML for traits and metadata PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-24 CASE troubles PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-23 Need another type for this trait in PersonIdTraits module PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-22 IDL error (typo) PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-20 need to be able to get description of matching algorithm PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-18 $issue.summary PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-21 Issue:: CorrelationMgr Interface (typo) PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-16 $issue.summary PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-19 need find_candidates operation on CorrelationMgr PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-17 $issue.summary PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-15 $issue.summary PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-13 $issue.summary PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-11 $issue.summary PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-14 $issue.summary PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-12 $issue.summary PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-9 semantics of aliases in context of correlation manager PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-8 Typos in formal/99-03-05 PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-10 $issue.summary PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-6 "Relationship to PMF" PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-5 The supported_traits operation returns trait names but not types PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-7 Explicit "Link and Unlink Operations needed? PIDS 1.0 open
PIDS11-4 The spec is not clear enough on How to Handle Links PIDS 1.0b1 open
PIDS11-3 Update PIDS spec to use Notification Service event type language PIDS 1.0b1 open
PIDS11-2 Update Appendix 8 PIDS 1.0b1 open
PIDS11-1 Value Sets for Coded data elements in the PID segment PIDS 1.0b1 open

Issues Descriptions

Relationship to PMF

  • Key: PIDS11-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3067
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Level Seven Visualizations ( Jon Farmer)
  • Summary:

    Is there, or can there be made, a formal relationship between PMF properties
    and PIDS traits?
    Partial Proposed Resolution:
    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; }

    ;

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Tue, 23 Nov 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

should we reference the recent HL7 SIGMPI harmonization with PIDS

  • Key: PIDS11-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3017
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Level Seven Visualizations ( Jon Farmer)
  • Summary:

    We in SIGMPI have recently made some good strides in harmonizing HL7 and
    PIDS by adding some missing events and updating the identifier management
    language (id domains, profiles, traits). We are even applying event names
    that approximate the PIDS operation names where applicable in the new
    events:

    get person demographics
    find candidates
    get corresponding identifiers
    allocate identifiers (Tim notes you can do that with a register_new_ids
    supplying an empty profile, although personally I am disgusted by such a
    practice because it commonly leads to dupes, and is only valid for
    intentionally-to-be-reused IDs which is also philosophically questionable)

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

how to report database-or-infrastructure-level erros as exceptions

  • Key: PIDS11-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2938
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Level Seven Visualizations ( Jon Farmer)
  • Summary:

    Is there an exception, or a "correct way" to let the client know that an
    underlying infrastructure error (like an RDBMS error) has occurred?

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Mon, 20 Sep 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Question or issue regarding collaboration diagrams

  • Key: PIDS11-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2965
  • Status: open  
  • Source: yahoo.fr ( Guy Genilloud)
  • Summary:

    > I think that this example on page 3-127 is wrong or terribly misleading.
    > [x < 0] 4: invert (x, color) – conditional Message
    >
    > If I read right, condition-clause is supposed to follow the sequence number.
    > So the correct example would be:
    > 4 [x < 0] : invert (x, color) – conditional Message.
    >
    > To me, this is a guarded message
    > [x < 0] 4: invert (x, color) – guarded Message

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Tue, 19 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

using XML for traits and metadata

  • Key: PIDS11-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3019
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Level Seven Visualizations ( Jon Farmer)
  • Summary:

    Since this representation of trait values in XML is fully-compliant at the
    IDL level, it's not a functionality change.
    The expression of trait metadata (so as to document the STRUCTURE of it) is
    a functionality change but it is defensible as a fix, even to make to make
    it possible for PIDS clients to validate dates - not just textual format but
    the value domains at the basic and abstract datatypes.

    I think we can all agree at this point that we need an operation on
    IdentificationComponent called

    get_trait_metatdata

    and I feel strongly that it should use DTD notation. If we agree at this
    level (please everyone - do you agree so far?), then I think the next
    question is how to express basic and abstract types in the DTD.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

CASE troubles

  • Key: PIDS11-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2937
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Cognition Group, Inc. ( David Forslund)
  • Summary:

    Since with CORBA 2.3, everything is to be case insensitive there are some
    problems
    with the PersonIdService.idl. The statement defining: "Trait trait" in
    TraitSelector now is illegal. This requires
    a minor change in the IDL to make the instance of Trait to be different.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Need another type for this trait in PersonIdTraits module

  • Key: PIDS11-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2872
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I have one request for the revision task force. There is
    a trait in the PersonIdTraits module - PIDS/ExternalIds and its type is
    QualifiedPersonIdSeq. We need another type for this trait - which will
    correspond to the HL7 type for the patient"s Identifiers, e.g. it should
    have the domain, identifier and the type of identifier. A system can
    support multiple alternate patient identifiers - so in order to fully
    qualify what kind of externalId is being used, its type ( HL7 suggested
    table of Identifiers types can be used) needs to be defined.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

IDL error (typo)

  • Key: PIDS11-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2871
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There is an extra "};" in the PersonIdService.idl file just before the
    added find_or_register_ids method in the CorrelationMgr interface

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

need to be able to get description of matching algorithm

  • Key: PIDS11-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2836
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In order for a client to rightly interpret the results of a search using
    find_candidates or find_or_register_ids, it would be very helpful to have an
    operation to get a description of the matching algorithm employed

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Wed, 11 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: PIDS11-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2752
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Thu, 17 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Issue:: CorrelationMgr Interface (typo)

  • Key: PIDS11-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2870
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The text of the spec for CorrelationMgr has find_or_register_ids() in it
    but it isn"t in the IDL (section 2.6.7) on page 2-41, although it is in the
    overall IDL. at the end of the document.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: PIDS11-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2748
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Wed, 16 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

need find_candidates operation on CorrelationMgr

  • Key: PIDS11-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2835
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: We need a version of find_candiate that returns candidates (each with
    qualified id and profile) from multiple domains - not just the correlating
    domain.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Wed, 11 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: PIDS11-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2749
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Wed, 16 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: PIDS11-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2747
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Wed, 16 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: PIDS11-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2745
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: PIDS11-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2741
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Wed, 16 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: PIDS11-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2746
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: PIDS11-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2742
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Wed, 16 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

semantics of aliases in context of correlation manager

  • Key: PIDS11-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2738
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I think the spec needs some narrative on the semantics of aliases.
    Specifically, it fails to point out that the receipt of an alias from a
    source domian does not necessarily imply that its value is to be used as an
    alias in the correlating domain.

    This clarification is important because if a VIP (say, the president) is
    anonymous under an alias in a source domain it might be entirely appropriate
    to treat that alais as a real name in the correlating domain. Similarly,
    the correlating domain should be free to maintain its own alias for persons
    independent of source domains.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Typos in formal/99-03-05

  • Key: PIDS11-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2737
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: ISSUE Typos: Document formal/99-03-05 still has a number of typos that
    were to be fixed in the first RTF.
    This includes PHONE_NUMER_HOME instead of PHONE_NUMBER_HOME in the
    HL7Version2_3.idl and
    #pragma prefix "org/omg" on pages 2-13 and 2-44.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: PIDS11-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2739
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

"Relationship to PMF"

  • Key: PIDS11-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2671
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • 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..

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Fri, 28 May 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

The supported_traits operation returns trait names but not types

  • Key: PIDS11-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2670
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue: "Client needs trait-type awareness so it can type-validate
    interactive trait entries"

    The supported_traits operation returns trait names but not types, leaving
    the client unable to proactively validate trait entry. While the current
    spec provides for the server
    to throw InvalidTraitFormat on a bad date, It would be better to allow
    the client to know a priori that the Birth Date is a date so that it can,
    for example put up a visual date picker or otherwise validate the date
    before the
    user has tabbed on to other fields.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Fri, 28 May 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Explicit "Link and Unlink Operations needed?

  • Key: PIDS11-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2672
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue: Does the spec need explicit "Link and Unlink Operations, or just
    guidance on how to assert the
    DuplicateIDs and ExternalIDs traits?

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0 — Fri, 28 May 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

The spec is not clear enough on How to Handle Links

  • Key: PIDS11-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2093
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The spec is not clear enough on How to Handle Links

    Based on clear feedback in HL7 forums, I know there is serious concern
    over the fact that our Interfaces and info model show explicit support
    for merges (merges deactivate one dupe and leave another intact) but
    only implicit support for links (links leave multiple intact; In
    effect, they simply assert or "record" dupes).

    I find the last paragraph of 2.7 confusing: If PIDS implementations are
    to be able to "carry administrative and auditing attributes such as
    timestamp, user stamp, source system, and specific operation types",
    then it raises thevalid question: how does the implementation know when
    a link operation has occurred? We do not tell them anywhere in the spec
    as it stands.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0b1 — Fri, 16 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Update PIDS spec to use Notification Service event type language

  • Key: PIDS11-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1417
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The "10. Appendix - Event Descriptions" in the PIDS spec were done
    before the Notification Service was adopted. The Notification Service
    uses a different mechanism to specify event types. The PIDS spec should
    be updated to use the Notification Service event type language.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0b1 — Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Update Appendix 8

  • Key: PIDS11-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1416
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The "8. Appendix - Use Cases" in the PIDS spec do not accurately reflect
    how PIDS is to be used. This should be updated.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0b1 — Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT

Value Sets for Coded data elements in the PID segment

  • Key: PIDS11-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1245
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: PIDS specification has recommended the HL7 PID segment for standard trait names. The data type for many of the traits in the PID segment (like race, martial status etc.) are CE (Coded). An important aspect of achieving interoperatibility is to make a tight connection between coded fields and the coded vocabulary items that are possible values of the field. For example, the field "Sex" might have the allowable set of values: male, female and ambagious. To achieve that goal HL7 has defined value sets for the various coded fields. In most cases the values sets are from existing standard vocabulary like LOINC, UMLS etc. I was wondering - it will be nice if PIDS specifications also recommended the values sets for the coded fields in the PID segment to be the same as recommended by the HL7 standards.

  • Reported: PIDS 1.0b1 — Mon, 27 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:50 GMT