Stream: terminology
Topic: Confusion about SNOMED valueset url
Michael Calderero (Aug 21 2019 at 08:52):
Hi All - I am looking at the example concept maps http://build.fhir.org/conceptmap-103.json.html and http://build.fhir.org/conceptmap-example-specimen-type.json.html. In both, they specify either the source or target valueset as http://snomed.info/id?fhir_vs.
I'm confused about this because when I read http://build.fhir.org/snomedct.html#implicit, I am led to believe the base url should be http://snomed.info/sct. From the following paragraphs:
A SNOMED CT implicit value set URL has two parts:
The base URL is either http://snomed.info/sct , or the URI for the edition version, in the format specified by SNOMED International in the SNOMED CT URI Specification
A query portion that specifies the scope of the content
The URL http://snomed.info/sct should be understood to mean an unspecified edition/version. This defines an incomplete value set whose actual membership will depend on the edition used when it is expanded. If no version or edition is specified, the terminology service SHALL use the latest version available for its default edition (or the International Edition, if no other edition is the default).For the second part of the URL (the query part), the 5 possible values are:
?fhir_vs - all concept ids in the edition/version. If the base URI is http://snomed.info/sct , this means all possible SNOMED CT concepts
Hence a valid implicit valueset url would be http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs and not the one in the ConceptMap.
Which implicit valueset url is valid? The 'id' one? The 'sct' one? Or both?
Michael Lawley (Aug 21 2019 at 09:15):
The id one is NOT a valid ValueSet. The sct one IS a valid ValueSet.
Michael Calderero (Aug 21 2019 at 09:18):
So does that mean these concept maps examples need to be updated?
Michael Calderero (Aug 21 2019 at 09:23):
The 'id' url was present as far back as DSTU1: http://hl7.org/fhir/DSTU1/conceptmap-example-specimen-type.json.html
Michael Lawley (Aug 21 2019 at 09:34):
Yes, they should be updated.
Incidently, I tried running $validate over the first one and it complains about sourceCanonical and targetCanonical as element names
Michael Calderero (Aug 21 2019 at 10:58):
I filed GF#23730
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
