Stream: dotnet
Topic: FHIR .NET API Validation with terminology servers
Richard Kavanagh (Feb 20 2020 at 14:14):
We currently have a platform where we use VONK facades to facilitate our FHIR APIs in both STU3 and R4. The endpoints are mainly read-only or used for update internally. When we expose these externally we will want to use the .NET FHIR API to validate content based on profiles that we inject into the resources.
As we are using both STU3 and R4, is it the case that we will require both an STU3 and R4 terminology server, or can we intercept terminology server calls so that we can just use an R4 server? @Ward Weistra
Ward Weistra (Feb 20 2020 at 15:10):
Good question @Richard Kavanagh. I'll ask @Mirjam Baltus to get back to you on this!
Mirjam Baltus (Feb 20 2020 at 16:22):
@Richard Kavanagh: Are you asking about the internal terminology functionality of Vonk, or planning to integrate an external service?
Richard Kavanagh (Feb 20 2020 at 16:32):
I guess it is not actually Vonk related. If we use the FHIR .NET API for validation then we can pass in a URL of a terminology server. If we have code for validating STU3 and also code for R4, then my question is do we need an STU3 and R4 URL for the terminology server? I am assuming we do.
When the validation process is called, is there any way to intercept the calls to the terminology server?
Mirjam Baltus (Feb 20 2020 at 16:40):
I don't think that you can intercept the calls from the API to the terminology server that occur during the validation process. But it might be possible to point the validator to the right terminology server before validation starts. On the other hand, the question then really is whether the calls and input/output data to the terminology server is different for STU3 and R4.
Brian Postlethwaite (Feb 20 2020 at 20:44):
The code in the dotnet validator takes a terminology interface in its settings.
So if you're in the code layer, you can swap implementations.
Brian Postlethwaite (Feb 20 2020 at 20:45):
In my server I have settings that will do either the local sqlonfhir term server implementation (v simple), the partial one that Ewout added (port from Java), or to use an external terminology service.
Brian Postlethwaite (Feb 20 2020 at 20:46):
So you could do something similar to the external term service, and make it call the R4 terminology service for both.
Brian Postlethwaite (Feb 20 2020 at 20:47):
I could probably share that part of my code, as it's a very small part of the interface.
Richard Kavanagh (Feb 21 2020 at 14:14):
@Brian Postlethwaite if you re able to share that would be great
Christiaan Knaap (Mar 04 2020 at 07:48):
We are currently implementing a feature that will let you route terminology operations to one or more external terminology servers.
After that we also want to use this to plug external terminology server(s) into the validator. Having 1 for both STU3 and R4 may be possible, but requires bridging the differences in the definition of $validate-code between STU3 and R4. Those differences seem to be small so I'll put it on the list to look into that.
Frank Olthuijsen (Sep 29 2020 at 06:25):
Hi @Richard Kavanagh , I'm the new product owner for the Vonk FHIR server and going through our backlog I came across an issue created based on this discussion. Can you tell me if your problem is resolved or not? Thanks.
Richard Kavanagh (Sep 29 2020 at 06:57):
Thanks @Frank Olthuijsen - I have messaged you.
Frank Olthuijsen (Sep 29 2020 at 13:46):
I did not receive anything yet. Did you sent it to frank@fire.ly or by some other means?
Richard Kavanagh (Sep 29 2020 at 16:11):
:-) got side tracked - email on its way.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
