hi Tom
> well we need to be precise about what 'extended' means. If you add first
> level siblings to the previous version of your value set, it means your
> value set was incomplete when published.
>
yes. and that's the point. The world gets by on incomplete agreements
> If you want to add
'Example' is surely a documentation level concept, not a computational
one, and I would think often local. So if you are locally saying 'here's
an example', it's pretty close to saying 'we recommend you use this (in
this locality)'. So I would think at best it would appear in the
annotations
On 16/04/2019 00:16, Heath Frankel wrote:
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
I meant to say, in the previous post:
For large domain value sets (anything beyond ?200), I assume the value
set sits in a terminology service, and the archetype just has a binding
straight to that. /So there is no problem with the changing contents of
this kind of value set/, from the
Hi Heath,
I agree with you, other than that use of required may be helpful for some
local archetypes, or for some safety-critical valuesets, so I would keep it
in. 'Example' has been useful for us in the UK, in that looking at the FHIR
resource examples, even though rejected, has given us a
5 matches
Mail list logo
