Missing the point of this argumentation

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive
    • Priority: Highest
    • US FHIR Guidance - Quality Reporting (FHIR)
    • 0.1 [deprecated]
    • Clinical Quality Information
    • Home
    • Aignment
    • Hide

      Change sentence to (new text in bold), "Introducing another new conceptual model on top of that is specific to the quality management use case would be problematic as it introduces another layer of mapping and transformation that must be developed, tooled, authored, implemented, and subsequently maintained over time."

      Show
      Change sentence to (new text in bold), "Introducing another new conceptual model on top of that is specific to the quality management use case would be problematic as it introduces another layer of mapping and transformation that must be developed, tooled, authored, implemented, and subsequently maintained over time."
    • Rob Samples/Ivan Zapreev:23-0-0
    • Clarification
    • Non-substantive

      Could you please clarify what you are trying to achieve here? Why would one need to build up an additional conceptual model on top of FHIR? It is not clear here what the matter of argumentation is. What is the example of the set-up where one would use FHIR and then another conceptual model above? (By the way, the term conceptual model is not defined in this paper)

      Existing Wording:

      In the case of FHIR, implementer systems are already performing this transformation from their internal data models to FHIR. Introducing another conceptual model on top of that introduces another layer of mapping and transformation that must be developed, tooled, authored, implemented, and subsequently maintained over time.

      Proposed Wording:

      ?

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            ivan_zapreev
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: