Stream: terminology
Topic: GF#16474: CodeSystem.filter.operator - required binding
Grahame Grieve (Jul 26 2018 at 21:07):
I see that GF#16474 has been removed from a block vote - why? @Carmela Couderc can we discuss this here before the call next week?
Joel Schneider (Aug 02 2018 at 20:02):
In discussion during today's vocab call, the possibility of using an extension to essentially transmit an operator code not defined in the FilterOperator value set was suggested. Is an example available somewhere that illustrates how such an extension would look?
Grahame Grieve (Aug 02 2018 at 20:10):
in Xml:
<filter>
<name value="something"/>
<op>
<extension url="http://blah/blah">
<valueCode value="my-code"/>
</extension>
</op>
<value value="something else"/>
</filter>
Rob Hausam (Aug 02 2018 at 23:25):
this seems to be a rather little-known aspect of the specification
and I kind of wonder how it's going to work if it starts getting used a lot - when one of the expected set of values from the required value set isn't there
Michael Lawley (Aug 03 2018 at 03:29):
We always compare back to the set of values defined by the CodeSystem, but I'm not sure how a generic terminology server would know what the semantics of an arbitrary operator are -- i.e., what does http://blah/blah|my-code mean?
Grahame Grieve (Aug 03 2018 at 03:32):
it surely can't. No interoperability here
Michael Lawley (Aug 03 2018 at 03:35):
Unless there's a case that we've currently missed, discover later, and then document & agree on the semantics. We then have a technical hook to allow for new values (without changing the base spec)
Grahame Grieve (Aug 03 2018 at 03:36):
well, yes
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
