Stream: conformance
Topic: version specific references
Simone Heckmann (Aug 31 2016 at 19:02):
Someone please help me think: If there are multiple versions of a conformance resource distinguished by their logical version and we want to reference a specific version, how do we do this? The Scenario would correspond to case #3 described in http://hl7-fhir.github.io/resource.html#versions, where there are two instances of e.g. a ValueSet with identical ValueSet.url but different ValueSet.version attributes. When referencing that ValueSet e.g. from within a StructureDefinition we'd use the canonical url, so it wouldn't be clear which version we mean?
(cc to @dr Kai U. Heitmann )
Grahame Grieve (Sep 01 2016 at 12:21):
there is this:
Grahame Grieve (Sep 01 2016 at 12:22):
http://hl7-fhir.github.io/terminologies.html#logical
Grahame Grieve (Sep 01 2016 at 12:22):
I'm not sure that's all of the answer, but that's what we have
Simone Heckmann (Sep 01 2016 at 13:16):
Ah ok, so it is a conditional reference basically... Does the same mechanism work for referencing extensions, e.g.:
StructureDefinition.differential.element.type.profile = "http://fhir.de/StructureDefinition/myExtension?version=2.0" ?
Grahame Grieve (Sep 01 2016 at 20:35):
not at the moment
Grahame Grieve (Sep 01 2016 at 20:35):
and I don't know whether I'd be en favour, actually.
Simone Heckmann (Sep 02 2016 at 10:32):
Um, then I think I have a problem understanding the purpose of StructureDefinition.differential.element.type.versioning=specific, when there's no way to say which version is referenced.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 02 2016 at 12:17):
that's about meta.varsion
Simone Heckmann (Sep 02 2016 at 16:40):
What's your argument against handling the reference to profiles the same way as with ValueSets?
Grahame Grieve (Sep 02 2016 at 23:40):
well, extension definitions are about meaning, where as value set choices are about conformance. So that's the grounds for treating them differently. If the extension definition changes meaning between versions, what's one to do? So: change the definition, change the artifact id
Simone Heckmann (Sep 03 2016 at 12:24):
Ok, understood.
That means in consequence, that we can't use StructureDefinition.version to introduce a version specific reference between profiles but instead need to introduce a version part into StructureDefintion.url instead?
So for example, we'd need do name our Extensions something like "http://fhir.de/StructureDefinition/myExtension-2.0" and change the version part of the url if we want to introduce a revision of the Extension...
Grahame Grieve (Sep 03 2016 at 22:05):
if the revision changes the meaning, yes
Grahame Grieve (Sep 03 2016 at 22:06):
but there's 2 different things here - the reference to the extension in the instance, which is a fixed url. That should not be version specific. The other thing is the reference to the extension in ElementDefinition.type.profile (e.g. when you reference an extension in a profile). That should be able to be version specific using the same syntax as for value sets. I think it would be good if you created a task for that
Simone Heckmann (Sep 05 2016 at 20:14):
ok sorry, I guess then we were talking about two different things. I meant the latter. (Referencing during the profiling process)
I created GF#10576.
I hope my description of the task is clear enough to avoid this kind of confusion...
Simone Heckmann (Sep 06 2016 at 06:38):
@dr Kai U. Heitmann does that change request satisfy your use case?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
