Stream: implementers
Topic: To profile fields as required
Tim Berezny (Nov 28 2018 at 00:41):
When profiling a resource, is the correct way to document that a field is required to set it's lower cardinality to 1?
Richard Ettema (Nov 28 2018 at 00:47):
Yes. Although, if the required setting is due to a dependency on another field, you would leave it zero (0) and define a new constraint/invariant.
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Nov 28 2018 at 05:02):
Remember must support.
John Moehrke (Nov 28 2018 at 12:19):
use must support when you want to indicate that the element must be filled if the sender has the information (sometimes expressed as RE or R1). This is different than required.
Vadim Peretokin (Dec 05 2018 at 15:05):
Not necessarily;
The specific meaning of "Must Support" for the purposes of a particular profile SHALL be described in the element.definition, the general StructureDefinition.description or in other documentation for the implementation guide the profile is part of.
http://hl7.org/fhir/profiling.html#mustsupport
John Moehrke (Dec 05 2018 at 19:20):
Technically correct... but it is the general pattern that has happened, and yes it should be stated as specified for that IG.
Jens Villadsen (Dec 05 2018 at 19:53):
its not just the sender ... its also a flag to the receiving part
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 11 2018 at 00:08):
Possibly. It depends on the scope of the profile. In some cases, you might define different profiles for senders and receivers.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
