FHIR Chat · Observation.category requirements · argonaut

Stream: argonaut

Topic: Observation.category requirements

Josh Mandel (Sep 26 2018 at 15:15):

When I look at http://www.fhir.org/guides/argonaut/r2/StructureDefinition-argo-vitalsigns.json I see that the "argoprofile.category" element has:

        "patternCodeableConcept": {
          "coding": [
            {
              "system": "http://hl7.org/fhir/observation-category",
              "code": "vital-signs",
              "userSelected": false
            }
          ]
        },

But the summary table at http://www.fhir.org/guides/argonaut/r2/StructureDefinition-argo-vitalsigns.html#profile shows:

Required Pattern: {"coding":[{"system":"http://hl7.org/fhir/observation-category","code":"vital-signs"}]}

Three questions:

1. The presence of userSelected appears to be required the actual profile, but not documented in the description table; is this distinction intentional?
2. Should an instance where userSelected is absent be considered valid? (Currently I think it would be invalid, but that seems odd/undesirable).
3. Is there a reason to prevent additional codings from being included? I think the semantics of pattern used with an array-type property like CodeableConcept.coding are saying "no more codings are allowed" -- but again, this seems odd/undesirable (unless I'm missing the rationale).

@Lloyd McKenzie @Eric Haas

Josh Mandel (Sep 26 2018 at 15:16):

Cc @Andrew Bjonnes

Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 26 2018 at 15:47):

Hmm. I don't know why the rendered version and the StructureDefinition aren't identical. They should be. Based on the StructureDefinition, the pattern is only met if userSelected is present and explicitly false. The pattern is not saying no more codings are allowed - it's just saying there needs to be at least one coding that matches the pattern.

Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 26 2018 at 15:47):

Can you submit a change request about the tooling bug of rendered pattern and SD pattern not being identical?

Eric Haas (Sep 26 2018 at 15:48):

I don't remember defining the userSelected field either

Eric Haas (Sep 26 2018 at 15:50):

let me check the source file

Josh Mandel (Sep 26 2018 at 15:55):

the pattern is not saying no more codings are allowed - it's just saying there needs to be at least one coding that matches the pattern.

@Lloyd McKenzie the docs say

The values of elements present in the pattern must match exactly (case-sensitive, accent-sensitive, etc.)

... which to me means a value like an array needs to match exactly, too -- there's no special semantics defined for arrays, just "must match exactly".

Josh Mandel (Sep 26 2018 at 15:56):

Also @Eric Haas: @Andrew Bjonnes has noticed some other discrepancies between the Text representation tab and the structured tabs, across several of the profiles. Would you prefer to have these reported as GitHub issues, or some other way?

Eric Haas (Sep 26 2018 at 15:57):

GitHub

Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 26 2018 at 15:59):

If we need to add clarity, then submit a change request, but the behavior always has been (and has always been intended to be) focused on having a matching repetition.

Eric Haas (Sep 26 2018 at 15:59):

The source pattern is indeed the same a represented in the summary table.

Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 26 2018 at 16:00):

Essentially any elements not stated in the pattern are ignored - missing elements and missing repetitions.

Josh Mandel (Sep 26 2018 at 17:00):

Re: patterns, I added GF#18296

Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC