Stream: implementers
Topic: Multiple mappings to the same map identity
Stephen Royce (Jun 27 2016 at 02:22):
In a given resource, can I have more than one mapping to the same identity? In my case, I want to specify both FluentPath mappings and Mapping Language mappings for the elements in a StructureDefinition. I would like to do this within the StructureDefinition itself rather than as explicit StructureMaps, but perhaps that's not possible.
Stephen Royce (Jun 27 2016 at 02:25):
Perhaps there should be identities for each? If so, what would the URLs be?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 27 2016 at 03:54):
You'd need an identity for each. @Grahame Grieve may have thoughts on the URLs
Grahame Grieve (Jun 27 2016 at 05:32):
I'm not clear what you are mapping to
Stephen Royce (Jun 27 2016 at 06:18):
FHIR logical models to FHIR resources.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 27 2016 at 20:52):
what's the difference between 'fluent path mappings' and 'mapping language' - why specify both?
Stephen Royce (Jun 27 2016 at 22:47):
Because FluentPath is easy for a person to read, but the Mapping Language is needed for your new fancy tranformation.
Stephen Royce (Jun 27 2016 at 22:50):
It's just a short term thing, really. I need to be able to use FluentPath to train folks and to use in examples to my overlords. But the Mapping Language is what we'll really use. I'd like to be able to develop the 2 in parallel for a while.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 27 2016 at 23:47):
so they do the same thing? just use the sam mapping target, and use different languages on the mappings
Stephen Royce (Jun 28 2016 at 00:58):
So I can have 2 mappings for the same element to the same mapping identity?
Stephen Royce (Jun 28 2016 at 00:58):
Lloyd said I couldn't.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 28 2016 at 01:02):
well, I thought he was wrong, but he might have jumped to assumptions about what you were doing
Stephen Royce (Jun 28 2016 at 01:06):
Great; I'll just do that. 
Stephen Royce (Jun 28 2016 at 01:09):
Do FluentPath and the FHIR Mapping Language have MIME types?
Grahame Grieve (Jun 28 2016 at 01:10):
no. not something we've done yet. I'd use text/fluentpath and text/fhir-mapping for now
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 28 2016 at 01:47):
@Grahame Grieve Within a single mapping (for one identity), you can have as many alternative mappings as you like, but I thought mappings had to be unique within element for a given identity?
Stephen Royce (Jun 28 2016 at 01:53):
@Lloyd McKenzie How can you alternative mappings within a single mapping (for one identity)? The map element itself is 1..1, so you can't have 2 of those. Are you suggesting that the string itself be somehow broken up into a number of alternates?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 28 2016 at 02:02):
Yes. Mappings in an element are hand-wavy, so you can throw as many things into the string as you like
Stephen Royce (Jun 28 2016 at 02:06):
How would you do this in a reliably parseable way?
Grahame Grieve (Jun 28 2016 at 02:34):
I do not see any constraint that an element definition can only have one mapping for a given target. And I generate profiles that may have multiple mappings, because I do not replace mappings when I am generating snapshots
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 28 2016 at 03:51):
So there's no way to override a mapping? That sucks. (A profile may well be able to provide a more specific mapping than the parent. If you include both, that's going to be confusing.)
Grahame Grieve (Jun 28 2016 at 06:58):
that's not the same as 'override
Heather Grain (Jul 07 2016 at 19:57):
So this is a case of a map set with two different targets - I can see the relevance but I think that there is a need to be clear what is trying to be achieved - each target has a different use case - conventionally these would be two different maps but I can see utility in housing together provided the functionality is clear.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 07 2016 at 21:05):
I didn't think that was the focus. I thought it was more like 'two different mappings to the same target'
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
