Stream: genomics/committers
Topic: text component
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:40):
just read todays call notes and now i'm confused. According to the notes Larry was not happy with my propsal
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:41):
but if you read his answer to my proposal i can't read unhappiness: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/189875-genomics-.2F.20eMerge.20Pilot/topic/Report.20Comments/near/172136688
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:41):
Larry Babb 17:19
One of the 2 sequencing centers uses the caption "Additional Notes" which we discussed are similar to "Comments" and we are considering the same. So your "type" and bindings should provide the nice option to discern when the comments are general or additional or whatever...
I'm not sure we (emerge) needs the Annotation type since it is not necessarily important to track the author making the comments, but I don't think it will hurt if we don't use it.
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:44):
We can't put it into a component as component doesn't allow related artifact as a datatype
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:44):
And can't handle the type of the Related Artifact
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:45):
There was also a concern:
Concern over adding an extension for something critical for interpretation
Jamie Jones (Aug 19 2019 at 19:47):
related artifact is a good value-add, we had missed that on the call, didn't see why text wasn't enough
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:47):
Yes extension not known to a system a left out and therefore dangerous. But we would include our Extension into the Profiles, so every system understanding our profiles would know how to handle the extension.
This is a Extension for human consumption and not machine readable, so the risk is even lower.
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:48):
related artifact is a good value-add, we had missed that on the call, didn't see why text wasn't enough
so i'll finish my work on the related artifact, e.g. moving it from my simplifier into the IG?
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:49):
btw. related artifact is an Extension since the beginning :smiley: i just added type to make it usable.
Jamie Jones (Aug 19 2019 at 19:49):
OH we're talking about updating our related-artifact extension!
Jamie Jones (Aug 19 2019 at 19:50):
that's a very different approach than what we were considering on call, I had forgotten
Jamie Jones (Aug 19 2019 at 19:51):
we already have control over that extension so yes I agree we should determine how to get what we actually want out of it
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:53):
i started determining, Clem asked to align with eMerge, i proposed the extension of the extension by type and he agreed.
Jamie Jones (Aug 19 2019 at 19:56):
to expand on the comment about Larry not being totally satisfied, I think Larry was considering it form a modeling perspective, he wanted to be able to add methodology/interpretation/misc notes at any given level of the report
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:57):
which is possible with an extension :smile:
Patrick Werner (Aug 19 2019 at 19:57):
will get to O&O with this topic in Atlanta i think
Kevin Power (Aug 19 2019 at 22:32):
Perhaps we can pick this up tomorrow and ensure everyone knows the idea was to extend an extension we already are using? I had forgotten that as well :frown:
Kevin Power (Aug 19 2019 at 22:46):
I think we need to clarify with the group on Tuesday that this was an 'improvement' to the "related artifact" extension, then we can decide as a group if we go with that or with a component - then we vote.
Patrick Werner (Aug 20 2019 at 09:20):
as i wont make it today:
- component only works in Observation, this is also needed on the report level (request by emerge, important to us (MOLIT) as well)
- component doesn't allow relatedArtifact as a data type
- we would need at least 3 new String components (methodology notes, one for interpretation (references, etc), and additional comments)
Patrick Werner (Aug 20 2019 at 09:22):
@Lloyd McKenzie
my only concern with related artifact is that is focused on knowledge resources. Our 3 usecases for Annotation aren't only knowledge focused.
Patrick Werner (Aug 20 2019 at 11:54):
I think we need to clarify with the group on Tuesday that this was an 'improvement' to the "related artifact" extension, then we can decide as a group if we go with that or with a component - then we vote.
good idea. I modified the agenda on related artifact a bit to reflect the needs and discussion
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 20 2019 at 14:46):
I won't make it today either :) Agree that component doesn't work for DiagnosticReport - you'd have to use extension there if you wanted qualified note types. It's still better to use Observation.component for Observations than introducing an extension there I think. Can you refresh my memory on how RelatedArtifact comes into play here?
Bret H (Aug 21 2019 at 03:40):
related artifact has a type field and can handle a reference or string data type....that's what I recall
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
