Task vs DiagnosticReport

[bwalsh]

Use case:

As an aced user, when I upload files, I may need to document how those files were created.

Current documentation:

A Task, or DiagnosticReport can provide provenance on how the file was created

See doc

Discussion

The Task entity seems appropriate:

A task resource describes an activity that can be performed and tracks the state of completion of that activity. It is a representation that an activity should be or has been initiated, and eventually, represents the successful or unsuccessful completion of that activity.

However, it's output field contains a loosely typed array of value[x]

Where value[x] is a term for

In FHIR XML and JSON, the value[x] element has an actual name of "value" and then the TitleCased name of one of these defined types, and its contents are those as defined for that type. see https://build.fhir.org/extensibility.html

The concern is that this loose coupling will require more support, more explanation and perhaps more bugs as analysts maintain meta data

For inputs, there are untyped references:

• focus

• for

  The DiagnosticReport is described a little more specifically:

The findings and interpretation of diagnostic tests performed on patients, groups of patients, products, substances, devices, and locations, and/or specimens derived from these.

Semantically, it would be better if they had named it AssayReport aka:

The findings and interpretation of assays performed on ...

Compared to Task, the edges are more complete and typed accordingly for these use cases:

• single or multiple individuals See Patient, Group
• multiple specimens
• multiple documents
• multiple observations