FHIR Chat · Syntax for canonical pre-adoption convention · implementers

Stream: implementers

Topic: Syntax for canonical pre-adoption convention

David McKillop (May 21 2019 at 05:10):

I'm looking at https://www.hl7.org/fhir/versions.html#extensions to progress some STU3 diagnostic profiles with R4 pre-adopt elements including:
- ProcedureRequest.patientInstruction with proposed URL of http://hl7.org/fhir/4.0/StructureDefinition/extension-ServiceRequest.patientInstruction
The following code is used in the structuredefinition file:

    <element id="ProcedureRequest.extension:patientInstruction">
      <path value="ProcedureRequest.extension" />
      <sliceName value="patientInstruction" />
      <short value="Patient or consumer-oriented instructions" />
      <definition value="Instructions in terms that are understood by the patient or consumer." />
      <min value="0" />
      <max value="1" />
      <type>
        <code value="Extension" />
        <profile value="http://hl7.org/fhir/4.0/StructureDefinition/extension-ServiceRequest.patientInstruction" />
      </type>
    </element>

and I'm getting the output of:
R4-preadopt-extension-20190521.JPG
and this in the qa.html:
R4-preadopt-qa-20190521.JPG
Any guidance on the correct syntax/code is appreciated.

David McKillop (May 23 2019 at 05:20):

@Grahame Grieve , @Lloyd McKenzie , @Brett Esler - any suggestions on how to pre-adopt an R4 element in a STU3 profile given the above attempt didn't quite achieve it?

Vadim Peretokin (May 23 2019 at 07:32):

@David McKillop Hey David - have a look at this: http://hl7.org/fhir/versions.html#extensions

David McKillop (May 23 2019 at 22:22):

Hi @Vadim Peretokin - yeah - that's what I was looking at, but the code above with the content:

  <profile value="http://hl7.org/fhir/4.0/StructureDefinition/extension-ServiceRequest.patientInstruction" />

isn't giving the output that I was expecting - refer above. Hence seeking further advice on what I've done to get the output to work. Cheers

David McKillop (May 23 2019 at 22:45):

FYI - tried with the latest IG Publisher and the output is the same as above with the same error in the qa.html.

Rob Eastwood (Sep 03 2019 at 22:49):

FYI - recent discussion with @Grahame Grieve - support for this has not yet been implemented.

Eric Haas (Apr 09 2020 at 17:32):

My assumption is that this applies to bringing into extension from the R5 current build. ( even though R5 not published yet ) @Grahame Grieve ? ccing @Rob Hausam @Hans Buitendijk @Jose Costa Teixeira

Hans Buitendijk (Apr 09 2020 at 18:17):

I understand this works with a published later version, but thought for not yet published, only in build states.

Grahame Grieve (Apr 09 2020 at 20:27):

how to pre-adopt an R4 element in a STU3 profile

I thought that this was fully working now

Grahame Grieve (Apr 09 2020 at 20:27):

oh. in a profile.. hmm... I don't think I investigated that

Grahame Grieve (Apr 09 2020 at 20:28):

I guess this is about the snapshot generator, not the validator

Hans Buitendijk (Apr 16 2020 at 14:11):

@Grahame Grieve So we need a separate extension then for now until R5 is published to enable an R4 implementation to use it?

Grahame Grieve (Apr 16 2020 at 20:45):

no, you need a separate extension because I haven't enabled using the cross version extensions in profiles.

Grahame Grieve (Apr 16 2020 at 20:45):

It's on my todo list

Grahame Grieve (Apr 17 2020 at 12:24):

this will work on the next release (I think)

Eric Haas (Apr 23 2020 at 21:50):

Just to clarify: does this cover freshly minted standard extensions in R5 extension for R4 IGs or just for R5 elements?

Grahame Grieve (Apr 23 2020 at 23:01):

no not extensions at this point. Discussion on that subject at the next FHIR-I call

Lilian Minne (Dec 07 2020 at 14:46):

@Grahame Grieve could you say something about the status of enabling cross version extensions in profiles? I added an extension to my STU3 ProcedureRequest profile with the following URL: http://hl7.org/fhir/4.0/StructureDefinition/extension-ServiceRequest.orderDetail but Simplifier complains that the canonical can't be resolved. I also tried adding the following package in the dependencies: hl7.fhir.xver.r4

Grahame Grieve (Dec 07 2020 at 18:09):

well, it's supported nby the java validator, but I can't say anything about whether other platforms support it. I think you'll have to ask firely (@Ward Weistra ?)

Ardon Toonstra (Dec 08 2020 at 10:32):

Wouldn't it be a good idea to generate all these extensions and publish them in a package?

Grahame Grieve (Dec 08 2020 at 20:14):

there is a package, but it uses a compressed form in order to keep the size down:

Grahame Grieve (Dec 08 2020 at 20:15):

hl7.fhir.xver-extensions

Grahame Grieve (Dec 08 2020 at 20:30):

oh yes - also, there was the question of which version it would be in, and whether I'd have to publish the permutational explosion of version of extension vs version applicable

Ward Weistra (Dec 09 2020 at 10:58):

@Grahame Grieve This was one of those packages with a non-existing FHIR Version (4.0), which likely explains why it is not processed correctly: https://simplifier.net/packages/hl7.fhir.xver-extensions/0.0.5/files/293627. A new package version with the correct FHIR version should fix it, I assume.

Grahame Grieve (Dec 09 2020 at 10:59):

oh. Didn't I already correct it?

Grahame Grieve (Dec 09 2020 at 12:19):

no I did not. Will post an updated one shortly

Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC