You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I think this is not possible to do in IGAMT, maybe not even in the validation, so we need to have a discussion.
I need to assign a value set binding to OBX-5, when the value of OBX-2 is CWE. I do not have a co-constraint (so no particular value for OBX-3), so I cannot use co-constraint to do that.
Describe the solution you'd like
We need to find a way/place in IGAMT to add a value set binding to OBX-5, under certain conditions (ex: OBX-2 value). Could be in dynamic mapping or in co-constraint, not sure what is best...
I'm open to other suggestions/ideas if anyone has a better idea.
Describe alternatives you've considered
I could implement it using the "value set" conformance statement, but I'd like to avoid that if possible. It is not intuitive for "regular" users. Also I'd like to use the value set validation module, not the conformance statements one (if possible).
Additional context
n/a
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I think this is not possible to do in IGAMT, maybe not even in the validation, so we need to have a discussion.
I need to assign a value set binding to OBX-5, when the value of OBX-2 is CWE. I do not have a co-constraint (so no particular value for OBX-3), so I cannot use co-constraint to do that.
Describe the solution you'd like
We need to find a way/place in IGAMT to add a value set binding to OBX-5, under certain conditions (ex: OBX-2 value). Could be in dynamic mapping or in co-constraint, not sure what is best...
I'm open to other suggestions/ideas if anyone has a better idea.
Describe alternatives you've considered
I could implement it using the "value set" conformance statement, but I'd like to avoid that if possible. It is not intuitive for "regular" users. Also I'd like to use the value set validation module, not the conformance statements one (if possible).
Additional context
n/a
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: