Stream: EBMonFHIR
Topic: Citation with new version of artifact
Yunwei Wang (Oct 03 2021 at 23:42):
Assume I have Citation/1 which has citedArtifact of an article. Now the publisher published a new version of the article with minor changes. Should I handle this as a
1) new Citation instance Citation/2 which links to Citation/1 using element Citation.relatesTo
2) a new version of the same Citation instance, like Citation/1/_history/2 and links to original one using Citation.citedArtifact.version.baseCitation
3) a new version of the same Citation instance, like Citation/1/_history/2 and links to original one using Citation.citedArtifact.relatesTo
I think option 2 is better than option 1. Thought?
Another question is that since the content of the citedArtifact is changed, is there way to indicate what the changes are? I am thinking to create an extension to either Citation.citedArtifact.version or Citation.citedArtifact.relatesTo
@Brian Alper
Brian Alper (Oct 04 2021 at 11:05):
Many issues in this set of questions.
First, the "right" method depends on the context and potentially the implementation-specific expectations. If you are creating a Citation Resource to support your citations for a publication or project you may have different needs than if you are creating a Citation Resource to serve as the index entry in a repository that you are managing.
Second, there is a difference between Citation.meta.versionId (the record version for the Citation Resource itself) and Citation.version (the business version of the Citation Resource itself) and Citation.citedArtifact.version.value (the "business" version of the cited artifact). If you are making a new version of the same Citation instance you would not use citedArtifact.version element.
Generally you would not make a new version of the same Citation instance if you want to functionally cite (i.e. actively use) prior versions of that Citation instance.
Some general rules of thumb:
1) If you are revising the Citation instance without concern for actively using prior Citation data (e.g. changing the citation used for reference to what you are citing in a specific report) you may wish to change the Citation Resource content directly, and use the Citation.version if you need to document a "business" version of this Citation Resource.
2) If you replacing the Citation instance with a new Citation instance, you can then use Citation.relatesTo (which will be replaced with RelatedArtifact datatype) to document the replacement relationship.
3) If you are making a new Citation to represent a citation to the new article, and there is a relation other than "version" between the new article and another article, then you can use Citation.citedArtifact.relatesTo (also to be replaced with RelatedArtifact datatype) to record the relation with the cited article.
4) If you are making a new Citation to represent a version of a cited article, this is not a new version of the Citation Resource. This is where you would use the Citation.citedartifact.version.value to denote the version represented by the Citation Resource. You can use Citation.citedartifact.version.baseCitation to reference the cited artifact that this is a version of (and potentially re-use the data that is unchanged between Citation Resources). There is no standard instructoins regarding whether the first version or the last version should be considered the "base" citation, and this is likely more appropriate to decided at the implementation layer than the standard layer.
Finally, there is not an element in Citation for the explicit purpose of change tracking. In practice we have have used the note element to document such things. We are proposing an ArtifactComment Resource as a new resource that can serve this function.
Brian Alper (Oct 04 2021 at 11:06):
@Yunwei Wang @Khalid Shahin FYI to see the response.
Brian Alper (Oct 06 2021 at 20:49):
Please use this chat stream to discuss the ArtifactAssessment FHIR Resource Proposal https://confluence.hl7.org/display/FHIR/ArtifactAssessment+Fhir+Resource+Proposal in preparation for FMG meeting October 13. The latest version of the proposed ArtifactAssessment StructureDefinition is at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19-s6b9W0gosa-Cr5fxJtqThrTY0HView/edit#gid=1310064706
Please comment on any changes desired to the StructureDefinition to fit your needs. One element to provide feedback for is the ArifactAssessment.contributorship element which is a backbone element with many contained elements (see build.fhir.org/citation.html for Citation.relatedArtifact.contributorship). All of this data can be handled by a Citation Resource with use of ArifactAssessment.citeAsReference, and rater-specific attribution can be handled in the content. If so, are there minimum metadata elements to include at the Resource level (when not referencing a Citation Resource for attribution), such as ArtifactAssessment.publisher and ArifactAssessment.author ?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
