Stream: mapping-framework
Topic: ConceptMap or StructureMap ?
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 11 2019 at 10:01):
I would like to formalize the relationships between a logical model representing the International Patient Summary data set (EN 17269) and the related FHIR IPS profiles.
Reading the definition I supposed that the ConceptMap was the most appropriate "The ConceptMap resource is suitable for representing high level relationships between models, while this StructureMap resource is intended to describe the full details that need to be known in order to transform an instance of data from one structure to another"
Grahame Grieve (Feb 11 2019 at 10:02):
well, depends how far you want to go. If you want to talk about the conceptual relationship, then you want to use concept map, which is a lot simpler. but if you want people to be able to feed your definitions into an engine and get converted data out, then you need structure map
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 11 2019 at 10:03):
in my understanding data conversion relates to implementations
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 11 2019 at 10:06):
the EN 17269 is more at the conceptual level, it says the types of information that you have to or you may have in the IPS
Grahame Grieve (Feb 11 2019 at 10:06):
then you want concept map
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 11 2019 at 10:09):
I had some doubts also due to the behavior of the IG builder that creates entries in the txchace as the models were value sets… and by the facts that the ConceptMap resource says for traget[x]/source[x] "value set that contains the concepts that are being mapped"
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 11 2019 at 10:10):
are you aware about any IG using conceptmap for models mapping that I can look at ?
Grahame Grieve (Feb 11 2019 at 10:23):
I don't know of any IGs doing that
Grahame Grieve (Feb 11 2019 at 10:23):
I would probably have to add some views to make it useful
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 11 2019 at 10:25):
that would be great !
Grahame Grieve (Feb 11 2019 at 10:32):
next week when I'm done with HIMSS
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 11 2019 at 10:33):
Thanks a lot.
Michael van der Zel (Feb 11 2019 at 11:22):
In the Dutch logical models we use the <map> element in the profiles to map back to the Logical Model. Is that "wrong" or just another way to do this?
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 11 2019 at 11:24):
the advatage that i see in having the ConceptMap is that you decouple the mapping from the source/target artefacts..
Giorgio Cangioli (Feb 11 2019 at 11:29):
for example if your data model is somehow updated, you are not obliged to update the profile to keep track of this change (in some case you may not be allowed to do it or the data model and profile may follow two different maintenance processes); but you may update the ConceptMap.
Rob Hausam (Feb 11 2019 at 14:02):
I agree with you about the value of decoupling the mapping from the profiles, Giorgio.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 11 2019 at 16:27):
yes, there's no right and wrong there - just balance of pros and cons
Michael van der Zel (Feb 12 2019 at 11:57):
The nice thing about adding the mappings to the profiles is that the mappings show-up in Simplifier. Don't know if they also take ConceptMaps into account.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 12 2019 at 13:23):
I believe not
Michael van der Zel (Feb 15 2019 at 09:46):
@Alexander Henket What do you think. Should we move the ZIB mappings from the StructDefs to a separate ConceptMaps?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
