Stream: implementers
Topic: OIDs
Peter Gee (Jun 02 2016 at 03:04):
Where can i find a reference for more information about OIDs used in CDAs. for example i am working off a document that references a codeSystem of 1.2.36.1.2001.1001.101.104.16594 now i can find http://oid-info.com/get/1.2.36.1.2001.1001.101 I am guessing that the suffix numbers are defining attributes, but i can't see where they are defined. searching NEHTA for the OIDs, or looking at FHIR/HL7 hasn't been that helpful. Can't help thing of the xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/927/ .
Stephen Royce (Jun 02 2016 at 05:35):
These OID definitions are not available publicly outside of the specification PDFs. However, if you look in the accompanying Structured Content Specification document, you should be able to find a fuller description of 1.2.36.1.2001.1001.101.104.16594.
Peter Gee (Jun 02 2016 at 06:36):
thanks.
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Feb 08 2017 at 19:16):
OIDs seem to be changing meaning across FHIR versions. Is that expected?
One example is 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.2.107
- In DSTU1 and DSTU2 ballot, 0.5.0, the OID corresponds to medication-prescription-status
- In DSTU2 final, 1.0.2, the OID corresponds to device status
Grahame Grieve (Feb 08 2017 at 19:33):
that should not happen
Grahame Grieve (Feb 08 2017 at 19:35):
bindings.ini - should ensure that this does not happen
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Feb 08 2017 at 19:38):
I have a list of what we perceive to be OID collisions between 0.5.0 and 1.0.2....do you want me to log a gForge or send it to you via email?
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Feb 08 2017 at 19:50):
Another example is: 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.118
version 0.5.0 (DSTU2 ballot): http://hl7.org/fhir/2015May/observation-reliability.html
version 1.0.2 (DSTU2 final): http://hl7.org/fhir/DSTU2/valueset-diagnostic-report-status.html
Grahame Grieve (Feb 09 2017 at 03:48):
send me an email. I can't retrospectively fix the standards, but I can see if I can figure out what went wrong and stop it from happening again
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Sep 17 2019 at 22:56):
1) Why are code system OIDs changing between releases (look at contact-point-use between STU3 and R4)?
2) Why are OIDs getting re-purposed (2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.74 was a value-set OID and now is a code system OID)?
| OID | FHIR Version | Code System | Value Set | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.74 | 4 | contact-point-use | http://hl7.org/fhir/R4/codesystem-contact-point-use.html | |
| 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.67 | 3.01 | contact-point-use | http://hl7.org/fhir/STU3/codesystem-contact-point-use.html | |
| 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.74 | 1.0.2 | condition-clinical | http://hl7.org/fhir/DSTU2/valueset-condition-clinical.html |
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 18 2019 at 01:00):
Tongue-in-cheek: to make sure people didn't come to the conclusion that OIDs were more reliable when we changed most of the code system URLs?
@Grahame Grieve ?
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Sep 18 2019 at 04:13):
The linked-to profile in the first row in the table is normative. eek!
Grahame Grieve (Sep 18 2019 at 09:42):
ummm, what? re-purposed... that was supposed to be impossible.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 18 2019 at 09:42):
I'll investigate
Grahame Grieve (Oct 02 2019 at 11:13):
so it seems as though this is my fault. I rebuilt the internal FHIR oid registry for both code systems and value sets after discussion with Vocab. As part of that, I was going to change the working OID root for both Value sets and Code Systems. I did change it for value sets, from 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.2. to 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.3, but I left the code system root oid as 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.
I was supposed to change that too. Its hard to believe that I overlooked doing that. What this means is that the numbers under 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1 were all re-purposed in Feb 2017, but neither I nor anyone else noticed at the time. I do not know what the least painful way forward is now
Grahame Grieve (Oct 02 2019 at 11:14):
the commit hash of the commit for fixing up value sets was 06af2eaa68a07b473d22ea80f85e8404a762307b
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Feb 26 2020 at 16:33):
@Grahame Grieve cross-posting here as well since I didn't get a response on terminology stream (https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179202-terminology/topic/R4.20Technical.20Correction.20and.20OIDs):
I know you fixed this in R4, but it doesn't seem to be fixed in R5. For example:
http://hl7.org/fhir/2020Feb/codesystem-administrative-gender.html has 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.2
http://hl7.org/fhir/R4/codesystem-administrative-gender.html has 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.4.2
http://build.fhir.org/codesystem-administrative-gender.html has 2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.2
I assume (please confirm) that the correct go-forward OID is the R4 OID (not the R5 / build OID)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
