Stream: implementers
Topic: Indicators of Extendability in Structure Definitions?
Sumeet Shah (May 07 2019 at 14:00):
Hello, I had a question about the extendability of fields in various resources. I had previously been operating under the assumption that primitive fields should be extendable. However, in validating resources, I've run into a couple of fields that seem to indicate that this is not the case (for example, 'profile' in the Meta resource and 'div' in the Narrative resource). Is there was anything in the structure definition to indicate whether or not a field should be extendable? Are these two fields exceptions?
Grahame Grieve (May 07 2019 at 14:02):
div is special case, and not extensible. I'm not sure about meta.profile
Michel Rutten (May 07 2019 at 14:03):
Meta.profile is a list of Canonical elements, should be able to accept extensions (not implying this is encouraged/widely supported...)
Sumeet Shah (May 07 2019 at 14:06):
Ok, cool. Just making sure I wasn't going crazy! Are there any other special/exception fields that would be good to know?
@Michel Rutten, I'm basing the validity/invalidity of extendable fields on the JSON schema from (https://www.hl7.org/fhir/downloads.html), which doesn't like if I have a '_profile' field in my meta fields. If we should be able to extend this, should I update my local copy of the schema to accommodate this?
Michel Rutten (May 07 2019 at 14:08):
Not sure about the JSON specifics, I'm an old XML guy... ;p
Sumeet Shah (May 07 2019 at 14:10):
Fair enough haha. Thanks for your help! Just to make sure, are there any other 'exception to the rule' fields like 'div' that you're aware of?
Grahame Grieve (May 07 2019 at 14:11):
.id
Sumeet Shah (May 07 2019 at 14:13):
Thank you!
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
