Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-26224

The text seems duplicated. Does it make sense to be in this section?

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

    Details

    • Type: Change Request
    • Status: Published (View Workflow)
    • Priority: Highest
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Specification:
      US Da Vinci Alerts (FHIR)
    • Raised in Version:
      0.2.0
    • Work Group:
      Infrastructure & Messaging
    • Related Page(s):
      Home (index)
    • Related Section(s):
      2.1.3.4.2
    • Resolution Description:
      Hide

      1) rewriite profile section as follows to clarify differences:

      "

      A use case specific Notification Bundle is defined by starting with base constraints in the [Da Vinci Notifications MessageHeader Profile] and [Da Vinci Notifications Bundle Profile] and creating a more tightly constrained MessageHeader Profile. Resources that are referenced within the Bundle are profiled to complete the Bundle definition. Depending on the use case, existing profiles may be used or new profiles defined.

      See the Admit/Discharge use case for an example of using FHIR Profiles to define the Bundle.

      FHIR profiling is more mature mechanism and broadly supported by the implementation community, reference implementations, and validation tooling. However,there is no mechanism to enforce profiles in a message on a reverse link because “reverse links” cannot be traversed forward from the MessageHeader. It may also require more artifacts than using MessageDefintion/GraphDefinition.
      {:.highlight-note}

      (Pre-applied)

      remove GraphDefinition section as proposed in FHIR-nnnn

      Show
      1) rewriite profile section as follows to clarify differences: " A use case specific Notification Bundle is defined by starting with base constraints in the [Da Vinci Notifications MessageHeader Profile] and [Da Vinci Notifications Bundle Profile] and creating a more tightly constrained MessageHeader Profile. Resources that are referenced within the Bundle are profiled to complete the Bundle definition. Depending on the use case, existing profiles may be used or new profiles defined. See the Admit/Discharge use case for an example of using FHIR Profiles to define the Bundle. FHIR profiling is more mature mechanism and broadly supported by the implementation community, reference implementations, and validation tooling. However,there is no mechanism to enforce profiles in a message on a reverse link because “reverse links” cannot be traversed forward from the MessageHeader. It may also require more artifacts than using MessageDefintion/GraphDefinition. {:.highlight-note} (Pre-applied) remove GraphDefinition section as proposed in FHIR-nnnn
    • Resolution Vote:
      Craig Newman/Paul Knapp: 3-0-1
    • Change Category:
      Clarification
    • Change Impact:
      Compatible, substantive
    • Pre Applied:
      Yes

      Description

      The text below seems duplicated from the the previous section (2.1.3.4.1) (same text).

      "Use case specific Da Vinci Notification Bundles can be derived from the:
      • Da Vinci Notifications Bundle Profile
      • Use case specific MessageDefinition and GraphDefinition instances
      See the Admit/Discharge use case for an example of defining a Bundle using this method."

      Does it make sense to be in this section?

      Existing Wording:

      Use case specific Da Vinci Notification Bundles can be derived from the:
      • Da Vinci Notifications Bundle Profile
      • Use case specific MessageDefinition and GraphDefinition instances
      See the Admit/Discharge use case for an example of defining a Bundle using this method.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              Assignee:
              Unassigned Unassigned
              Reporter:
              rquintano Ricardo Quintano
              Watchers:
              2 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:
                Vote Date: