Existing Wording \\n/a

Proposed Wording
Need to add language about FHIR support for SAIF.

Comments
The current FHIR modeling space does not speak of the need to create conceptual and logical models, prior to the construction of an implementation model. As a result, domain modeling in FHIR generates implementation models.

We see this result in the Care Plans and possibly in the Billing Claim modeling. As the modeling takes place somewhere, but is not formally identified, there is no traceability present.

If the intent with FHIR is to reference domain models from V3, and provide mappings to FHIR, then a formal set of statements and adequate documentation needs to be provided.

Grahame's Comments
Check that balloter has actually found the mappings

Disposition
Pending input from submitter

Disposition Comment
The Billing and Claims modeling is being reviewed. The WG had strong views of how the resources should be, so the FMG agreed to let them proceed on that basis to give the community something to review, but it won't necessarily stay that way. CarePlan has two variants to solicit feedback on implementer preference. It is not clear what formal set of statements and documentation is desired. V3 mappings are already formally provided in the mappings tabs. Can you clarify what is required?

A statement inside the FHIR specification about SAIF would be inappropriate as FHIR is targeted at the implementer community, while SAIF applies to design. Design rules for FHIR are not documented as part of the FHIR spec.