DV_CODED_TEXT with open/extensible set of codes (value set)

[sebastian.garde]

@thomas.beale

Anyway, do you agree that the required + strength change achieves what we want (assume that the required is really just a function that checks to see if strength = required ) or do we need something more? I’m not sure if I understood the last bit, you might need to expand on that a bit!

Sounds good to me.
It has the additional advantage (over my initial proposal with code_list_open in 1.4) that 1.4 and 2.0 are more aligned. (My intention to suggest code_list_open was to keep the 1.4 change minimal and aligned with C_STRING’s list_open)

OET’s “limit-to-list=false” in the described case would then probably best match “required = false / strength=extensible” (unless someone thinks strength=“preferred” is better?)

@thomas.beale

Potentially all existing archetypes would need to be migrated to include these settings, or we can potentially define the additions in such a way that required = False and strength = preferred are the result if no changes are made to the archetype.

I think the default if not specified for existing archetypes should be required=true / strength=required.
That’s my understanding of what it means at the moment and I wouldn’t change that. No migration needed, no change in meaning.