Should expansion.contains.version be 0..*? - 2018-Jan Core #11

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: Medium
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • STU3
    • Terminology Infrastructure
    • ValueSet
    • Hide

      Change the definition to 'The version of the code system from this code was taken. Note that a well-maintained code system does not need the version reported, because the meaning of codes is consistent across versions. However this cannot consistently be assured, and when the meaning is not guaranteed to be consistent, the version SHOULD be exchanged". (this is adapted from Coding.version)

      Show
      Change the definition to 'The version of the code system from this code was taken. Note that a well-maintained code system does not need the version reported, because the meaning of codes is consistent across versions. However this cannot consistently be assured, and when the meaning is not guaranteed to be consistent, the version SHOULD be exchanged". (this is adapted from Coding.version)
    • Rob Hausam/Carol Macumber: 15-0-1
    • Clarification
    • Non-substantive
    • STU3

      Existing Wording: expansion.contains.version (0..1) Version in which this code/display is defined

      Comment:

      Need clarification - should this be the first version of a code system where the code/display is defined? Or should the cardinality be 0..*. Or if there is more then one code system version with the code/display, any one of the code system versions?

      Summary:

      Should expansion.contains.version be 0..*?

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Carmela Couderc
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: