Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

2019-04-16 Thread Grahame Grieve
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'?

2019-04-16 Thread Ian McNicoll
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

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

2019-04-16 Thread Thomas Beale
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'?

2019-04-16 Thread Thomas Beale
'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'?

2019-04-16 Thread Thomas Beale
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