Stream: implementers
Topic: DataElement resource
Stephen Royce (Jun 10 2016 at 02:28):
If I have a DataElement resource, how should I map that to an ElementDefinition instance inside a StructureDefinition?
Stephen Royce (Jun 10 2016 at 02:28):
Or vice versa, or both?
Grahame Grieve (Jun 10 2016 at 03:12):
@Lloyd McKenzie - you've done the reverse...?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 10 2016 at 03:25):
Actually, I haven't. My mappings have been to Questionnaire. At the moment, we use either an extension on the Questionnaire question or a ConceptMap (which the Questionnaire points to with an extension)
Stephen Royce (Jun 10 2016 at 03:36):
So, if I want my ElementDefinition to say "I'm an instance of that DataElement over there", I need to use an extension in the ElementDefinition?
Stephen Royce (Jun 10 2016 at 03:36):
I assume that since this is technically not terminology -- albeit very similar -- a ConceptMap would not really carry the right semantics. Furthermore, how would the StructureDefinition know about the ConceptMap?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 10 2016 at 03:40):
ConceptMap can be used to map structures in addition to code systems. And you'd have to put an extension on the StructureDefinition. Whether you go for inline mappings or an external mapping depends on how you want to maintain the mappings.
Stephen Royce (Jun 10 2016 at 03:43):
Right. Just to confirm: inline mappings would require an extension on the ElementDefinition and external mappings require a ConceptMap and an extension on the StructureDefinition. Are there already definitions for such extensions?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 10 2016 at 04:04):
There are not. Though we could take the existing extensions on Questionnaire and generalize them to work for StructureDefinition too. (We'd have to figure out a new home for them though.)
Stephen Royce (Jun 13 2016 at 23:21):
What would be the meaning of more than one element in a DataElement?
Grahame Grieve (Jun 13 2016 at 23:21):
complex data element. which are common in some uses
Stephen Royce (Jun 13 2016 at 23:22):
Similar to our data group?
Stephen Royce (Jun 13 2016 at 23:22):
Or ISO 11179 object?
Grahame Grieve (Jun 13 2016 at 23:22):
I don't think so. It's a matter of perspective though. the idea is 'indivisability'
Stephen Royce (Jun 13 2016 at 23:23):
Okay. We do use sometimes create data groups to capture indivisibility, but not always. More often they are the equivalent of a UML class or ISO 11179 object.
Stephen Royce (Jun 13 2016 at 23:24):
Incidentally, why doesn't BackboneElement map to an ISO 11179 object instead of a data element?
Grahame Grieve (Jun 13 2016 at 23:25):
I don't understand the question
Stephen Royce (Jun 13 2016 at 23:27):
In ISO 11179 data elements are not made up of other data elements, so something like event in AllergyIntolerance, which is typed as a BackboneElement cannot be a data element; it is more properly an object (in 11179-speak).
Grahame Grieve (Jun 13 2016 at 23:29):
that's a differentiation that we make a mess of everywhere. a non-conformance with 11179, if you want
Stephen Royce (Jun 13 2016 at 23:30):
That's fine; it can be a handy simplification. I was just curious.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
