1498   should data with number extension always start with extension number 1?

Created: 26 May 2016

Status: Not Applicable

Part: Part 7-1 (2011; Edition 2)

Links:

Page:

Clause:

Paragraph: 14.6

Category: Issue for edition 2 of this part

Issue

section 14.6 says: "data with the number extension 1 can be extended. Number extensions may be ordered or not (1,2,3,4, or, 1,2,19,25), "
however it does not clarify if data with number extension should always start with extension number 1 or not, for instance:
Is the case: Ind0, Ind100, Ind101 ...
OR
the case: Ind2, Ind3, Ind100 ...
case allowed?

Proposal

When there are more than one instances of the indexed data, standard should not constrain which number to start.

Discussion Created Status
No it should not start with 1.

7-1 Ed2 Clause 14.6 specifies that "number extensions may be ordered or not".

Otherwise if you would delete over time the Ind1 you would have to renumber all the instances and this would lead to global reconfiguration of the system.

According to 7-2 Ed2.1, the Mmulti/Omulti presence conditions are defined with:

"all instances have an instance number > 0".



26 May 16 Not Applicable

 

Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer

Tissue DB v. 21.10.16.1