Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-42598

CapabilityStatements are too narrow

    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
    • (many)
    • Hide

      Agreed, the capability statements should reference all the types of knowledge artifacts defined by the specification.

      In addition, provide examples of the types of systems that would be expected to conform to these capability statements as suggested.

      Show
      Agreed, the capability statements should reference all the types of knowledge artifacts defined by the specification. In addition, provide examples of the types of systems that would be expected to conform to these capability statements as suggested.
    • Floyd Eisenberg/Greg White: 13-0-0
    • Correction
    • Compatible, substantive

    Description

      They only list Library and Measure . There are lots more artifacts than that. Maybe define the artifacts themselves as SHOULD, with the operations within as SHOULD SHALL or MAY as appropriate? Also, definitely need examples of what types of systems would be expected to be one of these. E.g. why would a system opt to be an authoring vs. publishable repository?

      (Comment 58 - imported by: Lloyd McKenzie)

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

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

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: