Stream: workflow
Topic: Common Workflow Extensions
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Jun 26 2018 at 14:33):
Did I miss a communication announcing common / shared workflow extensions? For example, I have http://build.fhir.org/extension-communicationrequest-relevanthistory.html, but I also see what appears to be a common extension, http://build.fhir.org/extension-request-relevanthistory.html. Is there a recommendation to leverage the common extensions versus creating resource-specific extensions? If so, should we be creating extensions when common extension are missing? For example, I don't see a request-instantiatescanonical -- should I have made http://build.fhir.org/extension-communicationrequest-instantiatescanonical.html a shared/common extension?
Eric Haas (Jun 26 2018 at 19:36):
I made all mine common so I could use them across the OO resources. Thought it was known.
Eric Haas (Jun 26 2018 at 19:37):
http://build.fhir.org/extension-event-instantiatescanonical.html
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 26 2018 at 19:38):
Please use the common ones - workflow reports will complain otherwise. And yes, feel free to add new ones if need be. Name them the same as the event element, following the existing pattern
Eric Haas (Jun 26 2018 at 19:39):
yes make them shared/common if'n they don't exist - @Lloyd McKenzie can you cc all the editors this little know fact?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 26 2018 at 19:46):
I don't know all the editors. I can post something on committers though.
Eric Haas (Jun 26 2018 at 19:47):
yes thanks
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Jun 26 2018 at 21:40):
Truth be told, I heard they were coming, but didn't realize (until now) that they are available. I have some legacy extensions and new ones that will all need to be reworked.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
