Make meta.profile required?

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive
    • Priority: Medium
    • US Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) (FHIR)
    • STU3
    • Clinical Interoperability Council
    • Profiles
    • Hide

      This has been a recurring point of discussion on FHIR chat for some time (see https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179252-IG-creation/topic/Profiles.20in.20examples for example). The prevailing view, and common practice in other IGs, is to not require meta.profile.

      Proposed resolution: Not persuasive

      Show
      This has been a recurring point of discussion on FHIR chat for some time (see https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179252-IG-creation/topic/Profiles.20in.20examples for example). The prevailing view, and common practice in other IGs, is to not require meta.profile. Proposed resolution: Not persuasive
    • May Terry/Richard Esmond: 11-0-0
    • Enhancement

      Should each mCODE data instance identify itself as conforming to a specific mCODE profile? It would be helpful to have an instance declare what it is in meta.profile, if instead of having the receiver try to guess or infer that that data represents a PrimaryCancerCondition or StagingData. The data might have clues, but this is far from a proclaming the intent to conform to a profile. My specific suggestion is that the profile URI becomes a fixed value in the meta.profile array, and therefore that array become 1..* instead of 0..*.

            Assignee:
            May Terry
            Reporter:
            Mark Kramer
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: