Stream: fhir/infrastructure-wg
Topic: provenance-relevant-history
John Moehrke (Jun 09 2020 at 15:33):
The security wg has found that FHIR-I has added a profile on Provenance back in 2017. We don't see a CR number associated with the creation of this profile, so the provenance of the profile is questionable. It marked as being owned by Security WG, yet github linage clearly indicates it was created by @Grahame Grieve and @Lloyd McKenzie (presuming FHIR-I, as part of the Event pattern relevantHistory mechanics).
Question: Is this used or was this aspiration? What is the use-case analysis for the given constraints? Where is "Must Support" defined?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 09 2020 at 15:42):
link?
John Moehrke (Jun 09 2020 at 15:50):
http://build.fhir.org/provenance-relevant-history.html
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 09 2020 at 15:57):
Not sure why it's owned by Security - probably automatic based on the resource. It should be owned by FHIR-I. It's a profile of Provenance intended for use by the "relevant-history" element in the Request pattern. Use case is what data we expect to be most relevant/important for conveying "relevant history". There was a problem linking to it properly and agree that mustSupport should be better defined. Can you submit a change request.
John Moehrke (Jun 09 2020 at 18:14):
done #FHIR-27794
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
