Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

HL7 allows you to do that - and we would like you to do that Grahame On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 9:16 AM Heath Frankel < heath.fran...@oceanhealthsystems.com> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I agree with Grahame, in over 20 years of implementing real systems, I > don’t think I recall having seen one

RE: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

Hi Tom, I agree with Grahame, in over 20 years of implementing real systems, I don’t think I recall having seen one value-set that hasn’t been extended at some point when locally implemented. Even HL7 defined tables in V2 that were supposed to not be extended have been extended. There is a big

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

hi Tom We did not define extensible bindings because we like it. Using it creates many issues and it's problematic. We defined it because it's a very real world requirement, in spite of it's apparent 'unreliability'. The use cases arises naturally when - the approval cycle of changes to the

FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

Last week, we had a workshop on ADL2 in Germany, to try to sort out a few issues on the way to making ADL2 mainstream in openEHR implementations. See here for the wiki page . One of the issues