Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-27200

Inconsistent syntacs should not be used in favor of brievity

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Icon: Medium Medium
    • Shorthand (FHIR)
    • 0.12.0 [deprecated]
    • FHIR Infrastructure
    • Language Reference
    • 1.3.4
    • Hide

      This is a tough call, because the voter is correct that using "include" would be more consistent in value set rules. But given this is shorthand, one of the principles is that expressing common things should be short. It is much more common to include things in value sets than exclude them. It would be very repetitive to require "include". 

      FSH users were polled on this issue on our 6/11/2020 call, and the consensus was to offer both options, i.e. to make "include" an option. Therefore, our proposed resolution is to allow but not require "include" in value set extensional rules.

       

      Show
      This is a tough call, because the voter is correct that using "include" would be more consistent in value set rules. But given this is  shorthand , one of the principles is that expressing common things should be short. It is much more common to include things in value sets than exclude them. It would be very repetitive to require "include".  FSH users were polled on this issue on our 6/11/2020 call, and the consensus was to offer both options, i.e. to make "include" an option. Therefore, our proposed resolution is to allow but not require "include" in value set extensional rules.  
    • Kramer/Rhodes: 14-0-0
    • Enhancement
    • Compatible, substantive

    Description

      I am not sure this is the right moment for this kind of comment but I would strongly discorage from using different ways of specifying inclusion and exclusion of code sets. It may be shorter to not to use the "include" explicitly. However, such implicit assumptions make the language less logical, harder to learn and much less readable.

      Existing Wording:

      • SCT#54102005 "G1 grade (finding)"
      • exclude SCT#12619005
      • codes from valueset ConditionStatusTrendVS
      • exclude codes from valueset ConditionStatusTrendVS

      Proposed Wording:

      • include SCT#54102005 "G1 grade (finding)"
        * exclude SCT#12619005

      * include codes from valueset ConditionStatusTrendVS
      * exclude codes from valueset ConditionStatusTrendVS

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            ivan_zapreev Ivan Zapreev (Inactive)
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: