Stream: committers
Topic: best practice for v3 vocabulary
John Moehrke (Jan 23 2017 at 17:10):
Is there a Resource that uses v3 vocabulary in the 'right' way? My resources have hard-coded http://fhir.org/fhir/v3.... which is now throwing a warning I need to clean up. I am glad to fix, I know it is wrong, I just don't know what is right.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 06 2017 at 02:32):
what's the warning?
Grahame Grieve (Feb 06 2017 at 02:33):
but the link should be http://hl7.org/fhir/v3/.../
John Moehrke (Feb 06 2017 at 15:13):
@Grahame Grieve the specific warning is [java] WARNING: cbcc:ValueSetComparison: Duplicate Valueset Names: v2/0498/index.html (v2 Consent Status) & valueset-consent-status-codes.html (ConsentStatus) (name: [consents, statuses] / [consents, statuses]))
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Feb 06 2017 at 17:37):
When I had similar QA warnings for PC resources, I reviewed the two value sets to see if the codes were the same.
When the codes were the same, I eliminated one value set by updating bindings to reference a single value set.
When the codes were different, I renamed the value set to differentiate it from the other value set.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 06 2017 at 19:10):
right. if they have the same name, why is there 2 value sets? SHouldn't they be given different names to differentiate them? or should they just be one value set?
John Moehrke (Feb 07 2017 at 20:21):
I only created the one in FHIR Consent... so I didn't know, still don't know, where the other valueset is being created. I would be glad to use a different valueset, but I don't know where it is or what it contains.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 08 2017 at 02:08):
the v2 one is defined in v2
John Moehrke (Feb 08 2017 at 06:49):
I had added that valueset because of the mandatory workflow integration stuff... I didn't know about an v2 thing. I had created the valueset inside the spreadsheet so it wasn't as completely defined as an xml defined valueset.... Solved it by just giving a different internal name. I didn't realize that exiting valuesets were available. Guess I should have...
Grahame Grieve (Feb 08 2017 at 11:47):
they are, though you can't actually use them on status codes, so I should probably turn that check off for status codes... still, it serves to prompt people to review the status codes for consistency
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
