FHIR Chat · Logical Model page layout

Stream: IG creation

Topic: Logical Model page layout

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 17 2020 at 16:22):

How would a Logical Model page look like in an IG?

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 17 2020 at 16:23):

should it show directly the model (differential) instead of the Text summary ?

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 17 2020 at 16:24):

I supposed Detailed Descriptions and Mappings would remain..?

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 17 2020 at 16:25):

I guess the header instead of being "StructureDefinition: ..." could be "Logical Model: " (or "Logical Data Model:") ?

Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 17 2020 at 17:05):

Text summary could still be relevant. We're probably going to change where it appears in the tab order for everything. (And make it more useful)
y
Logical Model is the term we use in the spec, so keeping consistent would be good

Giorgio Cangioli (Apr 18 2020 at 16:13):

Jose Costa Teixeira said:

I supposed Detailed Descriptions and Mappings would remain..?

I hope so .. :-)

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 18 2020 at 17:48):

Any other ideas for things that should be different?
(Besides the "examples" section for which there is a separate discussion)

Frank Oemig (Apr 19 2020 at 10:55):

@Jose Costa Teixeira do you have a sample IG? This is something we gave to work on for v2+ but I would like to benefit from existing work and thoughts...

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 19 2020 at 11:48):

@Frank Oemig you mean sample logical models? There are a few.
If you mean "sample new rendering of Logical Model" then no, but that may be a good idea to put in the guidance IG.

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 19 2020 at 11:50):

We don't have the new rendering yet because work is just starting (hence collecting ideas).

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 19 2020 at 11:50):

I can try to make a PR soon to the base template so that Lloyd can merge it.

Frank Oemig (Apr 19 2020 at 16:55):

IGpublisher can do a lot. So it would be good to have a max sample IG that demonstrates the different features.

David Hay (Apr 19 2020 at 20:49):

Not sure if it's useful - but here's one I'm working on - http://igs.clinfhir.com/healthalliance/StructureDefinition-HaPatient.html

Would like to lose from the snapshot:

meta info (id, meta, implicit rules, language)
extensions, contained
slice definition

Not sure if the differential tab adds value

(I am using clinFHIR to create the models as a precursor too creating the profiles - so may well be introducing oddities from there.)

Not sure what I'd add - I've just started using LMs in the IG...

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 19 2020 at 20:58):

@David Hay do you mean this
http://igs.clinfhir.com/healthalliance/StructureDefinition-HaPatientLM.html
instead?

David Hay (Apr 19 2020 at 21:50):

bother! yes...

David Hay (Apr 19 2020 at 21:51):

I should check what I'm doing before I click send! My comments above can be ignored...

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 19 2020 at 22:28):

Well, if we make the LM at least say "Logical model" instead of StructureDefinition you will spot it more easily ;) I struggle in my profiles as well

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 21 2020 at 13:50):

Do we want Terminology bindings ?
and Constraints?
The Schematron link would go away, right?

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 21 2020 at 13:51):

image.png

Jose Costa Teixeira (Apr 21 2020 at 13:52):

on 4. I think yes, we must preserve terminology bindings. - So far our practice is : the logical model may contain bindings that are defined at the functional / legal level - for example civil states.