Uploaded image for project: 'MedMij Standaarden'
  1. MedMij Standaarden
  2. MM-2237

Add additional guidance about population of meta.profile

Details

    • Wijzigingsverzoek
    • Status: Gesloten
    • 3
    • Resolution: Resolved
    • 2020.01 - September 2021
    • None
    • Nee
    • Alle
    • FHIR
    • The additional doesn't impose additional rules, it just offers clarification.
    • Add additional guidance about the use of meta.profile for receiving systems in the general FHIR IG in section 5.5 Profile use and declaration.
    • Hide

      Add additional text to section 5.5 Profile use and declaration of the main IG:

      The implementation guides for the various information standards list the profiles to use for the FHIR resources. A profile is a statement from the originator about the rules that this resource was created against. In the interest of interoperability it is important that, when using said information standard:

      • Each resource SHALL be a valid instance of the applicable profile. Note that this applies not only to profiles listed directly in the IG, but also to profiles referred from/used by listed profiles.
      • Each resource SHALL include the canonical URL of this profile in the meta.profile element. The canonical of compatible base or derived profiles MAY be included as well.
      • A receiving system MAY use the stated value of meta.profile for validation, documentation or other purposes.
      • A receiving system MAY use other profile(s) than stated in meta.profile, e.g. when it has derived, more constrained profiles based on the stated meta.profile. Reasons for additional validation may include protecting the integrity of the receiving system or determination of internal process flow.
      Show
      Add additional text to section 5.5 Profile use and declaration of the main IG: The implementation guides for the various information standards list the profiles to use for the FHIR resources. A profile is a statement from the originator about the rules that this resource was created against. In the interest of interoperability it is important that, when using said information standard: Each resource SHALL be a valid instance of the applicable profile. Note that this applies not only to profiles listed directly in the IG, but also to profiles referred from/used by listed profiles. Each resource SHALL include the canonical URL of this profile in the  meta.profile  element. The canonical of compatible base or derived profiles MAY be included as well. A receiving system MAY use the stated value of meta.profile for validation, documentation or other purposes. A receiving system MAY use other profile(s) than stated in meta.profile, e.g. when it has derived, more constrained profiles based on the stated meta.profile. Reasons for additional validation may include protecting the integrity of the receiving system or determination of internal process flow.
    • Hide

      The STU3 FHIR IG lacked some guidance on the population of meta.profile, this has been added to chapter 2.5.

      Show
      The STU3 FHIR IG lacked some guidance on the population of meta.profile, this has been added to chapter 2.5.

    Description

      Beste Michael,

      We zijn ons zeer bewust van de voordelen en nadelen van de .meta.profile. Voor het onderscheiden van zibs binnen dezelfde resources worden dan ook gefixeerde .category elementen gebruikt ipv de .meta.profile.

      Voornamelijk omdat de tooling nog niet goed genoeg is (bijv. Touchstone) maken we gebruik van de meta.profile om te kunnen valideren. Het is nog vrij lastig om tegen profielen te valideren zonder de .meta.profile.

      Voor de huidige gegevensdiensten is het nog verplicht op een .meta.profile te geven. Daar zouden clients dus ook van uit mogen gaan… Desalniettemin ben ik het wel met je eens en zou het een verduidelijking/verbetering kunnen zijn om hier in een zin of twee wat over te zeggen in https://informatiestandaarden.nictiz.nl/wiki/MedMij:V2020.01/FHIR_IG#Profile_use_and_declaration.

      Zou je hiervoor een ticket willen inschieten?

      Groet,
      toonstra

      • en -

      Zie deze thread: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179166-implementers/topic/Profiles.20requiring.20meta.2Eprofile.20with.20version
      Zie b.v. dit berichtje:
      Grahame Grieve 23:06 

      A profile tag is an explicit declaration of the purpose for which the resource was created

      That is very much not the case. It's a statement about the rules that resource is believed to meet. That's not the same as an explicit declaration of the purpose

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            galen@nictiz.nl Niek van Galen
            m.van.der.zel@umcg.nl Michael van der Zel
            Watchers:
            6 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Jigit Development

                Branches:
                Pull requests: