Stream: questionnaire
Topic: Questionnaire.item.notes
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 01:29):
GF#13933 proposes that we add an element for design notes. Lloyd said he would raise it here but appears not to have done so.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 01:29):
note that we do have ElementDefinition.requirements - that's nearly the same thing.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 01:33):
Requirements are of potential interest to implementers. Design notes are intended for internal use, not publication.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 01:34):
Design notes might mention specific names, ballot items, discussions, etc. They might also include todos
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 02:08):
Actually Sean said he'd start the discussion
Eric Haas (Jun 14 2018 at 18:48):
agree with LLoyd's comment sounds lke XML comments to me. - why create something new? and out of luck with JSON.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 19:10):
I don't think it should be XML comments. It needs to be in the source in a way that allows authoring tools to expose it. XML comments aren't a good way to manage that.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 19:11):
I was arguing that it was different from requirements, not that it shouldn't be a distinct element.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 20:17):
it sounds to me like an extension that could go on any element anywhere in the conformance and knowledge resources
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 20:50):
In theory that's true of requirements too, but typically we capture them at the root - or for StructureDefinition on a per element basis.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 15 2018 at 02:24):
SDC agreed to add an extension for this purpose with a scope of Questionnaire and Questionnaire.item. Are there other places we should allow it? I'm thinking StructureDefinition and StructureDefinition.differential.element, and maybe a few other places. Not sure we want to make it wide open because then tools wouldn't know where to support it in user interfaces
Grahame Grieve (Jun 15 2018 at 04:29):
can add yet another extension on element definition to hint, like the do-translations extension.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 15 2018 at 04:29):
not that I think that's a good idea. ValueSet.compose.include, CodeSystem.concept, and OperationDefinition.parameter spring to mind for me
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 15 2018 at 10:58):
The root of all of the knowledge resources (except maybe NamingSystem :)). We can expand it to more places as we discover need too.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
