Upgrade term and constraint bindings to structures
Raise CR
Analysis
Execution
Raise CR
Analysis
Execution
Description
Currently term and constraint bindings are 1:1 equivalences, and thus cannot carry any extra meta-data such as provenance, design intention, or other formal elements.
Activity
Show:
Thomas Beale
June 15, 2020 at 2:53 PM
(edited)
Various notes from SEC meeting:
local value sets could be in
Terminology Service (@Diego Bosca )
In archetype - just more bindings (@Thomas Beale )
separate associated ‘sibling’ artefact (@Pablo Pazos )
@Ian McNicoll says need local value sets in template - should act like an 'implementation guide'.
@Diego Bosca downside: numerous special templates, just to accommodate the needed rate of changes / updates.
@Ian McNicoll : use FHIR value-sets approach - could they be inside a source template - e.g. from a governance / mgt point of view.
@Luis Marco : ideally separated from templates (ref: Norway).
TB: future could be to treat source template as multiple artefacts (files) ; compile with appropriate options into OPT which does act as a standalone artefact, including any locally needed value sets.
Currently term and constraint bindings are 1:1 equivalences, and thus cannot carry any extra meta-data such as provenance, design intention, or other formal elements.