Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-20325

Make explicit that IGs must respect mustSupport

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive
    • Icon: Very High Very High
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • STU3
    • FHIR Infrastructure
    • ImplementationGuide
    • Profiling
    • Hide

      This is addressed by an alternative proposal to replace mustSupport that is considerably more capable. Lloyd is fine with the alternative proposal.

      Show
      This is addressed by an alternative proposal to replace mustSupport that is considerably more capable. Lloyd is fine with the alternative proposal.
    • Grahame Grieve/Rick Giemer: 8-0-0

    Description

      The mustSupport element clearly differentiates which elements in a profile implementers are expected to support - and which they don't. However, we don't currently have language that says that the flags in the profile actually have to jive with the ad-hoc documentation in the profile. I.e. there's nothing that stops an author from flagging Patient.deceasedDate as "false", while elsewhere adding language that indicates that Patient.deceasedDate "SHALL" be supported in some way. We need to make explicit - probably in the profiling page - that doing this isn't permitted. The ad-hoc language in narrative and surrounding text can't conflict with the formal documentation expressed in the StructureDefinition.

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            lloyd Lloyd McKenzie
            lloyd Lloyd McKenzie
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: