Yes, it looks like an error in the current IG version. In the original PDF spec under rule R4.3 we see that manufacturedMaterial/ingredient/[@classCode='ACTI']/ingredient/name is on the same lavel as manufacturedMaterial/ingredient/[@classCode='ACTI']/ingredient/code

Also, the levels of originalText and translation are strange. I believe they should be under manufacturedMaterial/ingredient/[@classCode='ACTI']/ingredient/code.

I changed the template, moving originalText and translation under code, and moving name to the same level as code.

Solved by changing the namespace prefix from hl7 to epsos

In the original PDF specs the element was introduced. And it was under the namespace for epSOS extensions (like formCode etc.). In that way it would not violate the CDA schema.

Could you explain to me this issue ?

the element 'desc' is not part of the CDA base schema, but is part of the epSOS CDA extensions...

as several other elements used in the epSOS CDAs...

I removed the newly added element.
The schema error will now be gone

Finding:

- We get a schema Error for instances that use new draft element "hl7:desc" : 

In content of element <manufacturedMaterial>: The content model does not allow element <Q{urn:hl7-org:v3}desc> to appear immediately after element <Q{urn:hl7-org:v3}name>.

Suggestion:

- remove the newly added element
- specify the requirements that triggered the introduction
- find a conformant solution that fulfills the requirements

Further explanation:

-The element violates the CDA schema.

Finding:  

- outcome of gap analysis of Abderrazek: consumable/manufacturedProduct/manufacturedMaterial/name required. In Expand the Cardinality is for the element is: (eP/eD/PS: R/NA/NA).

Suggestion:

- Change the cardinality from 0 ... 1 to 1 ... 1

Further explanation:

-

In the EXPAND PDF Spec this corresponds to R4.3, saying that this element is optional. As the  datatype is ST, using nullFlavor is not an option. However, in the code element you also have the name.

Finding:

- I noticed that no conformance is set for the name of the substance (under the ingredient element). This has to be at least 'REQUIRED' according to the guidelines.

Suggestion:

- Set the conformance to 'R'

Further explanation:

-

modified the example and the erroneous namespace prefix was fixed by dr Kai Heitmann

Finding:

- Example for the formCode is still using the old OID.

Suggestion:

- Adapt it to the new OID (0.4.0.127.0.16.1.1.2.1)

Further explanation:

-

Finding:

- In the asContent element we see the following description:
This structure describes the packaging of the medication. The element provides the code for the particular package.

But if we go into the formCode, we have the freedom to choose from the epSOSDoseForm value set OR the epSOSPackage value set. In my opinion, the Pharmaceutical dose form has to come into the formCode element under the manufacturedMaterial level and the formCode element under the /asContent/containerPackageMedicine can only contain values from the epSOSPackage value set

Suggestion:

- Remove the possibility to have a value from the 2 value sets.

Further explanation:

-