Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-32271

DeviceDefinition.parentDevice and DeviceDefinition.hasPart allow same concept to be modeled in two ways

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Medium
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • R5
    • Orders & Observations
    • STU
    • DeviceDefinition
    • Hide

      Motion to:

      • Remove parentDevice from DeviceDefinition resource
      • No change to hasPart backbone in DeviceDefinition resource
        • Explain why this is done differently as it points up with a couple of examples in a Notes section on device hierarchy.
      • No change to Device resource

      Ensure search parameters are updated appropriately.

      Show
      Motion to: Remove parentDevice from DeviceDefinition resource No change to hasPart backbone in DeviceDefinition resource Explain why this is done differently as it points up with a couple of examples in a Notes section on device hierarchy. No change to Device resource Ensure search parameters are updated appropriately.
    • Marti Velezis / Yanick Gaudet: 11-0-0
    • Enhancement
    • Non-compatible

    Description

      As defined currently in the spec, DeviceDefinition.parentDevice and DeviceDefinition.hasPart are both referencing a part of a device but in opposite direction (parent and child device type). Shouldn't we avoid representing same concepts in more than one way? I can see the need for having the DeviceDefinition.hasPart element, from which the parent relation can be deducted. I propose to have only one element in DeviceDefinition for representing parts of device. In case we want to keep both, there should be clear reason and better specified definition.

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          is voted on by

          Ballot Vote - The designation of a comment about a specification as related to an overall Ballot Submission BALLOT-43304 Negative - Vadim Peretokin : 2022-Sep-FHIR R5 STU

          • Withdrawn

          Ballot Vote - The designation of a comment about a specification as related to an overall Ballot Submission BALLOT-17356 Negative - Ana Kostadinovska : 2021-May-FHIR R5 Comment

          • Closed

          Ballot Vote - The designation of a comment about a specification as related to an overall Ballot Submission BALLOT-41931 Negative - Bas van den Heuvel : 2022-Sep-FHIR R5 STU

          • Balloted

          Ballot Vote - The designation of a comment about a specification as related to an overall Ballot Submission BALLOT-42682 Negative - Javier Espina : 2022-Sep-FHIR R5 STU

          • Balloted

          Ballot Vote - The designation of a comment about a specification as related to an overall Ballot Submission BALLOT-42784 Negative - Chris Melo : 2022-Sep-FHIR R5 STU

          • Balloted

          Ballot Vote - The designation of a comment about a specification as related to an overall Ballot Submission BALLOT-42870 Negative - Bert Roos : 2022-Sep-FHIR R5 STU

          • Balloted

          Ballot Vote - The designation of a comment about a specification as related to an overall Ballot Submission BALLOT-43187 Negative - Lisson Zhang : 2022-Sep-FHIR R5 STU

          • Balloted

          Ballot Vote - The designation of a comment about a specification as related to an overall Ballot Submission BALLOT-43744 Negative - David Simons : 2022-Sep-FHIR R5 STU

          • Balloted

          Ballot Vote - The designation of a comment about a specification as related to an overall Ballot Submission BALLOT-43886 Negative - Martin Rosner : 2022-Sep-FHIR R5 STU

          • Balloted
          mentioned in

          Page Loading...

          Activity

            People

              costateixeira Jose Costa-Teixeira
              ana_kostadinovska Ana Kostadinovska
              Watchers:
              4 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: