2:3.78.4.1.2.1: overlapping specification of how the identifier parameter is used about iti.pdqm HOT 2 CLOSED

Lynn, I don't understand this point, can you help me understand what you are pointing out?

ok... a logical AND condition written in logical OR format... the contents of these 2 specifications for the identifier parameter are a bit duplicative and also confusing.

I don't think there is a conflict or overlap. What might not be clear enough is that in FHIR repeating a parameter is a logical AND, one parameter with multiple values is OR.

AND -- ?identifier=urn:oid:1.2.3.4|145&identifier=urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.4.1|123456789

OR -- &identifier=urn:oid:1.2.3|,urn:oid:4.5.6|

note in the first one there are two "identifier=" separated by "&"; where in the second there is just one "Identifier=" with multiple values separated by ","

This concept of AND and OR was not understood well at the beginning of PDQm writing, where it should be better understood. We might not need to include so much text about this now days, relying more on the FHIR specification.
https://www.hl7.org/fhir/search.html#combining

I could also see good reason to just add clarification to the text we have. Specifically 2:3.78.4.1.2.4 Populating Which Domains are Returned
The first example should be better explained as asking for either 1.2.3 or 3.4.5;
The second example is asking for both a match on SMITH and also a identifier of 1.2.3.4.5

I am not against removing this section, as all of the parameters are affecting the output. I suspect this section exists because there was a similar section in PDQ.

from iti.pdqm.

Your recommendation for improving this is better than mine. Specifically (copied from your comment above):

This concept of AND and OR was not understood well at the beginning of PDQm writing, where it should be better understood. We might not need to include so much text about this now days, relying more on the FHIR specification.
https://www.hl7.org/fhir/search.html#combining

I could also see good reason to just add clarification to the text we have. Specifically 2:3.78.4.1.2.4 Populating Which Domains are Returned
The first example should be better explained as asking for either 1.2.3 or 3.4.5;
The second example is asking for both a match on SMITH and also a identifier of 1.2.3.4.5

from iti.pdqm.