Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-42594

Exhaustive list isn't possible

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive
    • Icon: Highest Highest
    • Canonical Resource Management Infrastructure (FHIR)
    • 1.0.0-ballot [deprecated]
    • Clinical Decision Support
    • Distribution
    • 8.4
    • Hide

      Agreed, indicate that the list is not exhaustive and provide guidance about how to determine what constitutes a dependency for the purposes of tracing.

      Show
      Agreed, indicate that the list is not exhaustive and provide guidance about how to determine what constitutes a dependency for the purposes of tracing.
    • Floyd Eisenberg/Greg White: 13-0-0
    • Correction
    • Compatible, substantive

    Description

      New extensions are being introduced all the time that could be dependencies that will need to be traced. You can't presume that cpg extensions will be the only ones that matter. We need an extension we can put on an extension definition of type canonical that indicates whether it's a dependency that should be traced when packaging. We also need an explanation of what the rules are for deciding whether to set that to true or not. I.e. what were the rules used to come up with the current list? Can we be confident that all packaging consumers will want the same rules followed? (E.g. might some want code systems, but others be satisfied with value sets?)

      (Comment 54 - imported by: Lloyd McKenzie)

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            lloyd Lloyd McKenzie
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: