Stream: committers
Topic: Value set References
Grahame Grieve (Mar 05 2017 at 11:34):
@Bryn Rhodes I am tightening up the build validation of inter-resource references. You have 2 value set references that are not valid, and look like they could be : ValueSet/LOINCDepressionAnswersList and ValueSet/LOINCDifficultyAnswersList - do you know which actual LOINC lists these are?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 05 2017 at 19:57):
further, does CodeSystem/npi-taxonomy actually want to refer to http://nucc.org/provider-taxonomy?
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 20:08):
@Grahame Grieve Here are the links to the actual LOINC lists:
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 20:08):
LOINCDepressionAnswersList: http://r.details.loinc.org/AnswerList/LL358-3.html
LOINCDifficultyAnswersList: http://r.details.loinc.org/AnswerList/LL359-1.html
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 20:09):
Should I create value sets for these?
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 20:09):
And yes, that's the CodeSystem I want, I couldn't find the actual reference so I made one up.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 06 2017 at 20:09):
you don't need to - just reference the implicit LOINC value sets, see http://build.fhir.org/loinc.html#alist
Grahame Grieve (Mar 06 2017 at 20:10):
and please change the code system reference - you can do that without doing a patch
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 21:08):
It's not clear to me from the documentation how to reference one of these implicit code systems as a resource?
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 21:26):
Generally, the documentation here (http://build.fhir.org/terminologies.html#system) says this: An http: address SHOULD resolve to some useful description of the code system. Ideally, if a user makes a request of the address with the media type set to a FHIR media type, the server will respond with a FHIR Value Set resource with an inline code system, but some other human or computable definition is allowed
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 21:26):
But shouldn't that SHOULD there say that it should return a CodeSystem resource? Why have the code system url resolve to a ValueSet?
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 21:27):
Or maybe I should raise that on the terminology stream?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 06 2017 at 21:29):
legacy thing I missed. fixed
Grahame Grieve (Mar 06 2017 at 21:32):
they're not implicit code systems, they're implicit value sets. It would jsut be
Grahame Grieve (Mar 06 2017 at 21:32):
http://loinc.org/vs/LL358-3 and http://loinc.org/vs/LL359-1
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 21:43):
Yeah, not the value sets, I'm talking about the change to use the NUCC provider taxonomy code system.
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 21:43):
So as a code system uri, it's http://nucc.org/provider-taxonomy
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 21:43):
But I have a place where I need to reference that code system as a resource.
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 21:44):
So would it be CodeSystem/provider-taxonomy?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 06 2017 at 21:48):
why do you need to reference the code system as a resource?
Bryn Rhodes (Mar 06 2017 at 21:50):
I have a Library where I want to declare that it has a dependency on that code system, which is done as a relatedArtifact, which references a resource.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 06 2017 at 23:03):
you can still reference the code system by it's canonical URL
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
