The proposal now splits practitioners=* into practitioners:primary=* and practitioners:support=* in order to avoid the 255-character limit for tag values. It gives an example of practitioners:support=* as “John Doe, CNA”, using the professional title for a certified nursing assistant.
Despite the warning in the rationale, someone could reasonably interpret this tagging scheme as a rote employee list – not only principals like the doctors, dentists, and attorneys whose nameplates adorn the front door, but also the nurses, hygienists, and paralegals whose names the customer may come across during a visit. The support staff would turn over much more easily than the key people at the practice. They don’t have a direct relationship with the customer and probably have an increased expectation of privacy. To the extent that the public would need their names and qualifications, they can already find this information elsewhere, such as in an accreditation board’s registry.
I’d suggest choosing an example that better illustrates the need for tagging “secondary” practitioners, such as a law firm’s partners and associates. I’d also suggest finding a more concrete example with a demonstration of the sources a mapper could realistically use to obtain this information.