FHIR Chat · Provenance scope question · implementers

Stream: implementers

Topic: Provenance scope question


view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Nov 10 2016 at 20:22):

We are looking to Provenance vs an extension to indicate whether the UDICarrrier string was hand entered or by a barc code scanner for the Device resource, but the question of scope arose since not all the information in the Device resource is entered by bacrode scanner. How is Provenance when only a portion of the data in the target resource applies to agents involved?

view this post on Zulip John Moehrke (Nov 10 2016 at 20:40):

Provenance resource is an identification of the provenance of that version... someone could use multiple versions of your Device resource with diffeent provenance... but that would be very awkward. Why is it important to record that different parts come by different pathways? I might suggest that this might be good evidence that we Device is too-big... meaning it should be smaller resources that can better be represented, tracked, and protected.

view this post on Zulip Grahame Grieve (Nov 10 2016 at 22:03):

I think that would be a path to insanity - that the scope should be picked by minimal provenacne tracking requirements.

view this post on Zulip Grahame Grieve (Nov 10 2016 at 22:04):

you can use target with a # on it, where what follows # is the id of the element in the resource that the provenance refers to. This is problematic, but any solution to what you propose will be less than ideal, I think.

view this post on Zulip Grahame Grieve (Nov 10 2016 at 22:05):

is hand entering a UDI without validation anything but a weird edge case?

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Nov 10 2016 at 22:11):

based on a comment from VA and @Ioana Singureanu maybe she can provide a little more context.

view this post on Zulip Eric Haas (Nov 10 2016 at 22:12):

I think it has to due with data reliability

view this post on Zulip John Moehrke (Nov 11 2016 at 14:59):

There is a fundamental of REST, and thus FHIR Resources... When you say to Create or Update, you are attesting to EVERYTHING in that Resource. You don't get to claim just parts of it. @Lloyd McKenzie made this clear in a thread this week.

view this post on Zulip Grahame Grieve (Nov 11 2016 at 20:34):

yes, if you create/update, you are responsible for the entirety. But that doesn't mean that you can report that the provenance of some of the information to you was at a finer granularity.


Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC