Stream: implementers
Topic: Search conformance
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 19 2019 at 13:42):
How would I express a search conformance requirement?
Like "this transaction here is initiated with a GET, where the practitioner is optional, the date is mandatory, and the intent MUST be "instance-order" "?
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 19 2019 at 13:52):
Text. There's no way to express this computably right now. (Though the text should say SHALL rather than MUST.)
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 19 2019 at 13:55):
Thanks. Agree, we MUST use SHALL :)
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 19 2019 at 14:24):
Where would we look at a "standardized" way to express this? Is this interesting for HL7 to discuss? (what WG?)
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 19 2019 at 16:59):
We've talked about it some already. It's part of the generic question of "how many gigabytes should a CapabilityStatement be?" :) There's always more nuance that we could theoretically express in a computable way, however there's diminishing returns as we continue to increase the complexity/capability.
John Moehrke (Mar 19 2019 at 17:54):
I think Jose is speaking about an Implementation Guide mechanism to be computable in the query parameter combinations that must be supported to declare IG compliant. This kind of compliance does not need to be this verbose in a servers CapabilityStatement... right? In fact I would expect that this kind of IG guidance would not be forced in real-life. For example, there are these kinds of requirements found in US-Core, but a server is not seen as non-compliant if it is more robust with query parameter support.
John Moehrke (Mar 19 2019 at 17:55):
I do agree with Lloyd, that this level of detail might be diminishing returns. The US-Core is a good example of how to do this in narrative.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 19 2019 at 19:08):
The only reason to do it as computable is if you're wanting to test conformance. The other option in this space is narrative plus TestScript.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Mar 20 2019 at 06:18):
I am trying to expose "workflow conformance".
Expressing "Actor 2 will provide to actor 1 a MedicationRequest resource where these are mandatory attributes..." should be easy.
It would be fair to say the same about Actor 1 - "Actor 1 can search on MedicationRequests but the parameter intent must be 'order-instance'".
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
