Closed johngrimes closed 2 weeks ago
Why not just VD.profile?
Why not just VD.profile?
I think this is a good suggestion (it's shorter!), and looking through the FHIR spec I can see a number of other references to StructureDefinition canonicals that are called profile
.
If @rbrush agrees, I will update this and save us some bytes!
The question is what is the profile about. Just 'profile' is slightly more ambiguous than 'resourceProfile' but only very slightly. 'requiredProfile' would be more explicit but I'm not a fan of it being longer. 'profile' is probably OK as long as the shortDoco is crisp and explains exactly what it does
This is what I came up with for the short and long doco:
FHIR profiles that this view definition was intended to be executed against
Indicates that this view definition was intended to be executed against any of the specified FHIR profiles.
What that doesn't say is that it's the resources that are being 'viewed' that the profile applies to - and it's important to be explicit, I think, since multiple different things can be profiled
Agreed, here is an update:
FHIR profiles that this view definition was intended to be executed against
Indicates that this definition was designed to create a view over a set of resources conforming to the specified FHIR profiles. Each of these profiles SHALL be based upon the resource type specified in resource.
This element communicates that the view definition was intended to be executed against the supplied set of profiles.
Resolves #265.