Stream: terminology
Topic: Required Coding value sets
Harold Solbrig (Nov 14 2016 at 22:34):
STU3's PlanDefinition resource defines "type" as type Coding with a required PlanActionType value set. The plandefinition-exclusive-breastfeeding-intervention-01 (through -04) examples do not include the system URI . Example
{
"title": "Notify the provider to sign the order.",
"textEquivalent": "A Breastfeeding Readiness Assessment is recommended, please authorize or reject the order.",
"type": {
"code": "create"
},
...
Is this valid? Do we know whether "create" came from the http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/action-type value set or somewhere else?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 14 2016 at 23:25):
It is indeed legal for Codings to not specify a system. They're only partially computable, but that may meet some use-cases. That said, the choice of Coding as a data type is odd. I would expect translations to be possible, thus necessitating CodeableConcept. Thoughts @Bryn Rhodes ?
Bryn Rhodes (Nov 15 2016 at 18:29):
The binding is actually supposed to be extensible there (it is in RequestGroup.action.type). As far as why Coding instead of CodeableConcept, it seemed unnecessary to go with a full coding, when all I need is an extensible list of types.
Harold Solbrig (Nov 15 2016 at 18:40):
So the STU3 "Required" is an error?
Bryn Rhodes (Nov 15 2016 at 18:41):
Yes, otherwise it could just be a code. Only reason for it to be a Coding is to support the extensible binding.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 15 2016 at 18:51):
If it's extensible and different systems could choose different extensions, then you'll invariably end up with multiple ways to say the same thing and thus a need for translations. We only use Coding instead of CodeableConcept where the notion of translations makes no sense.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
