Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

On 16/04/2019 23:37, Grahame Grieve wrote: 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

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

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

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

'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

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

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

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

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

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

> > > Heath > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical *On > Behalf Of *Grahame Grieve > *Sent:* Tuesday, 16 April 2019 7:03 AM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions < > openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> > *Subject:* Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'? > >

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

Sent:* Tuesday, 16 April 2019 7:03 AM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions < > openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> > *Subject:* Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'? > > > > hi Tom > > > > We did not define extensible bindings because we like it

RE: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

-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

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