Stream: conformance
Topic: Conformance resource
Grahame Grieve (Mar 15 2016 at 02:02):
What are people doing now for editing their conformance statements?
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 15 2016 at 02:52):
Mine is auto-generated from the model, plus some custom code for the hand implemented search bits.
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 15 2016 at 02:52):
And operations are also partially hand coded into the statement.
Jim Steel (Mar 15 2016 at 03:47):
We extend the HAPI conformance, but with a fairly comprehensive set of additions & overrides
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 23 2016 at 09:26):
has anyone ever considered not having the profiles, search parameters and operation definitions as part of the conformance resource, and just have resource references to the resources.
Also wondering if the resources themselves could say "served by this server"
Would alleviate the size of the conformance issue, but the down side would then be multiple calls. However the secondary calls could be focused to only ask for what I'm really after.
(This could also apply to the CDS hook discussions going on too)
Michel Rutten (Mar 23 2016 at 09:31):
@Brian I like your suggestion. This could be a big help for mobile devices with limited bandwidth. It would also limit server traffic and improve the connection setup costs for regular clients that validate conformance on the first call. Especially for full-fledged FHIR servers with many capabilities.
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 23 2016 at 09:33):
Thanks @Michel Rutten , I was thinking about it when I had to have the resources anyway, why replicate them in the conformance. If I want 1 call, use the _include syntax.
Michel Rutten (Mar 23 2016 at 09:46):
Exactly, kind of like a default "summary" view of the conformance record. Clients can then explicitly request the server to expand on it.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 23 2016 at 10:17):
Well, now, you can ask for the summary or the full version. Its
Grahame Grieve (Mar 23 2016 at 10:17):
sounds like a simpler path to the same outcome...
Michel Rutten (Mar 23 2016 at 10:27):
According to the spec, Conformance.resource.type is included in summaries, but Conformance.resource.profile is not. Maybe summary should also include the profile references? This way, a client could first request a summary of the conformance and then resolve any specific profiles of interest.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 23 2016 at 10:32):
That's worth making a task for
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 23 2016 at 10:44):
Would still like something on the conformance resources to say that it is offered by the server that I can search on.
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 23 2016 at 10:45):
(esp for Search params and Operations - and hooks)
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 23 2016 at 10:46):
Expect that there is no assumption that if the server has stuff in these resources they support them.
(Unless they are a registry)
Grahame Grieve (Mar 23 2016 at 10:57):
that's a bit like active vs passive
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 23 2016 at 11:08):
I know. But in reality you're either a registry, or the only purpose for those resources are to say what you do.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 23 2016 at 11:30):
or you're a demo
Grahame Grieve (Mar 23 2016 at 11:30):
or you're a registry that supports search
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 23 2016 at 11:36):
True (I guess that makes my all those too - but in production use it will be just one of them)
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 23 2016 at 11:36):
(Don't plan to be in the registry biz)
Michel Rutten (Mar 23 2016 at 12:19):
Created GForge task 9747:
http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=9747
Jenni Syed (Apr 11 2016 at 17:34):
I noticed that Conformance.rest.resource is required in DSTU 2, but no longer required in the May 2016 snapshot/current versions. To acheive that requirement for now, is it valid to expose Conformance itself? It seems rather useless to do that, so we would likely remove it for the STU 3 final version.
Jenni Syed (Apr 11 2016 at 17:42):
IE: Server would say via /metadata that you support the Conformance read interaction, and wouldn't list anything else.
Grahame Grieve (Apr 11 2016 at 18:08):
I'n not following? We changed it to 0..1 instead of 1..1 so you could list an operation at system level, but no operations at a resource level. I don't know why it would have other impacs
Jenni Syed (Apr 11 2016 at 18:48):
It's changed in current, I'm trying to be compliant to DSTU 2
Grahame Grieve (Apr 11 2016 at 19:03):
ok I understand better now. I agree - just do conformance read
Jenni Syed (Apr 11 2016 at 19:20):
thanks!
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
