Stream: terminology
Topic: Terminology Capabilty
Grahame Grieve (Sep 20 2017 at 02:15):
in San Diego, we agreed that we'd work on a Terminology Capability Statement, and that I'd draft one (this week!). We had some verbal discussion about what should be in it but none of that made it into the minutes.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 20 2017 at 02:16):
so here's a rough scope outline of what I think it should say:
Grahame Grieve (Sep 20 2017 at 02:25):
- which code systems (&versions) are fully supported beyond those available through GET CodeSystem?content-mode=complete
- for each code system supported by the engine
- is compositional grammar supported (if defined in the code system)
- which filter properties are or aren't supported
- what languages are supported
- what properties are supported on $lookup?
-
whether closure table production is supported
-
is lockedDate supported
-
does the server support the following when doing expansions
- heirarchical expansions
- paging
- asking for incomplete expansion rather than exception
-
what profile applies to ExpansionProfile (e.g. which fields you can use). Note: which parameters can be used on $expand is in an operation definition
- text documentation about how the _filter parameter works
- what transaltions are checked doing $validate?
- whether a client must nominate a specific concept map when doing $translate
- which code systems closure table maintenance can translate across?
Grahame Grieve (Sep 20 2017 at 02:26):
at least, that's what I see looking across the spec. Comments please
Rob Hausam (Sep 20 2017 at 02:47):
Thanks, Grahame. I thought we had some documentation from that session, but if it's not in the minutes (I hadn't looked yet) then I don't know where - if anyone has notes that would be useful to contribute. The list looks pretty complete so far.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 20 2017 at 02:53):
@Reuben Daniels and I looked in the minutes and found the procedural stuff but not the details around scope
Rob Hausam (Sep 20 2017 at 03:06):
ok
Grahame Grieve (Sep 21 2017 at 12:59):
so it seems unlikely I'll be on the call today, and I haven't fleshed out the full resource - but probably dicussing the scope I put above will be enough to fill the time. I think at least some of what I listed is not core for now, until we explore the space a little more
Grahame Grieve (Sep 21 2017 at 13:00):
and some things I didn't list because doing them should be mandatory - so no need to say that you do
Rob Hausam (Sep 21 2017 at 15:28):
OK. We'll start with discussing the list (at least will begin that discussion), and can continue on the next call when hopefully you can join and we'll have the draft resource to look at. Thanks.
Carol Macumber (Jan 28 2018 at 18:31):
Can someone post the URL for the draft Terminology Capabilities Statement in the current build? For the life of me, I can't find it even though i've read it before (and there's no pointer in the GForge ticket https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=14124&start=0) ...all i can find is this http://build.fhir.org/capabilitystatement-terminology-server.html off of this page http://build.fhir.org/terminology-service.html
Carol Macumber (Jan 28 2018 at 19:59):
Nevermind...found it listed under Resources...would be nice to have a pointer to it from the page above that talks about the capability terminology statement
Rob Hausam (Jan 28 2018 at 20:01):
yes, we need to make some updates to the Terminology Module page - and other places
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
