Stream: terminology / utg
Topic: Editor Development
Grahame Grieve (Apr 04 2019 at 01:31):
@Ted Klein so looking through the UTG source, I see these extensions:
Grahame Grieve (Apr 04 2019 at 01:31):
http://healthintersections.com.au/fhir/StructureDefinition/valueset-generatehttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/codesystem-commentshttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/codesystem-contributorhttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/codesystem-legalesehttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/codesystem-mif-extended-propertieshttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/codesystem-openIssuehttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/codesystem-relationshipKindhttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/resource-concept-binding-strengthhttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/resource-historyhttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/resource-stewardhttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/resource-versionDeprecatedhttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/resource-versioningPolicyhttp://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/structuredefinition-wg
Grahame Grieve (Apr 04 2019 at 01:32):
why is one in healthintersections space? should I fix that?
Rob Hausam (Apr 04 2019 at 06:14):
yes, I think you should - that doesn't make sense
it just resolves to the blog
Grahame Grieve (Apr 04 2019 at 07:42):
I think that http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/codesystem-relationshipKind has a problem with CodeSystem.hierarchyMeaning
Grahame Grieve (Apr 04 2019 at 09:26):
no never mind. but the codes should be reconciled where they match
Grahame Grieve (Apr 04 2019 at 09:59):
code systems:
<extension url="http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/structuredefinition-wg">
<valueCode value="PA"/>
</extension>
Grahame Grieve (Apr 04 2019 at 09:59):
value sets
Grahame Grieve (Apr 04 2019 at 09:59):
<extension url="http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/resource-steward">
<valueString value="Steward: Security WG"/>
</extension>
Grahame Grieve (Apr 04 2019 at 09:59):
I do not think that this difference brings value to the process; we should fix this
Ted Klein (Apr 05 2019 at 14:12):
Need opinion from Lloyd what he needs to be able to generate the coremif for ballot publishing correctly. They may be differently labeled in the coremif. I will follow up.
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 05 2019 at 15:21):
Only issue is structuredefinition-wg is going to be limited to a context of StructureDefinition. (If not, it's sort of defined in the wrong place)
Grahame Grieve (Apr 05 2019 at 20:03):
don't understand that issue. It's not limited to StructureDefinition
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 05 2019 at 20:14):
structuredefinition-wg isn't limited to structuredefinition?
Grahame Grieve (Apr 05 2019 at 20:36):
only implied in the name, but not stated in the definition.
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 06 2019 at 01:29):
Is there a reason why it must be declared in structuredefinition instead of somewhere more generic?
Grahame Grieve (Apr 06 2019 at 21:35):
only legacy
Grahame Grieve (May 22 2019 at 23:14):
@Ted Klein here!
Grahame Grieve (May 23 2019 at 02:36):
@Ted Klein follow up question from today's call: would UTG work ever be done against any snomed other than intl? can we distribute a compiled copy of SNOMED Intl version with the UTG tooling?
Ted Klein (May 23 2019 at 12:18):
I believe the answer to the first question is NO. In the JIRA workflow, we plan to send those that ask for any change to the SNOMED CT content to the HTA page that describes how to request content changes from SNOMED. Full stop. The second question is a bit more subtle; right now for testing and demonstration purposes, I have bundled the same international copy of SNOMED CT that you have on the FHIR pages into UTG, but this is pending discussion with Vocab and TSC and HTA and perhaps others as to what we want to do about this. I'll ask Julie that this be added to the HTA agenda for a recommendation.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
