FHIR Chat · Is Extension.valueIdentifier:valueIdentifier a valid id? · conformance

Stream: conformance

Topic: Is Extension.valueIdentifier:valueIdentifier a valid id?

Chris Moesel (Jun 04 2021 at 03:12):

We are testing GoFSH on more IGs and have run into one type of element that it does not handle well, but we find more than a few times in the AU Base 2 IG. An example of the element can be found in the Address Identifier Extension:

{
  "id": "Extension.valueIdentifier:valueIdentifier",
  "path": "Extension.valueIdentifier",
  "sliceName": "valueIdentifier",
  "min": 1,
  "type": [
    {
      "code": "Identifier",
      "profile": [
        "http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/Identifier"
      ]
    }
  ]
}

When it comes to defining choice elements in a differential, I am familiar w/ two ways to notate the id. Using an element for the value[x] Identifier choice as an example, I'd expect one of these ids:

• Extension.value[x]:valueIdentifier
• Extension.valueIdentifier

This is reinforced by the spec comments on ElementDefinition.id and Firely's Type Slicing in FHIR R4 documentation.

The example above, however, uses Extension.valueIdentifier:valueIdentifier, which seems to be a hybrid of the two documented approaches. Is that considered a valid id? I ask because I am trying to determine if we need to implement something in GoFSH to handle this use case.

Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 04 2021 at 03:14):

That's not a valid id now, though it's possible tools might have spit out stuff that looked like that at some intermediary point in the transition to the current id syntax. If it were run through the current Java snapshot generator, I think it'd either yell or fix it.

Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC