Closed fiendish closed 4 years ago
No, there is no plan see Jira tracker. FHIR-19925 https://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-19925 Can you withdraw this tracker?
Eric
Eric M Haas, DVM, MS Health eData Inc 35 Crescent Avenue, Sausalito, CA 94965 707.227.2608|Skype: haas.eric1 ehaas@healthedatainc.com
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:53 AM Avi Kelman notifications@github.com wrote:
It looks like some attribute extensions mimic CodableConcept types with ad-hoc category designations (e.g. "text", "ombCategory", "detailed"). Is there a reason why these aren't modeled using CodableConcept or is it purely historical? If historical, is there a plan to migrate them to use CodableConcept?
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/HL7/US-Core-R4/issues/29, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYRJ2RM2BZ5PDFRSDPBNK3RLSMWJANCNFSM4MEBFZYA .
Ok, I'll close it. But I don't think that Jira track addresses whether a list of CodeableConcepts could more idiomatically represent the same data while still allowing arbitrary nonrelationship. It only talks about 1.
It looks like some attribute extensions mimic CodableConcept types. For example,
ombCategory
anddetailed
inus-core-race
are modeled as containing a string and a Coding. The CodeableConcept data type has a string element and a list of Codings. Is there a reason why these extensions aren't modeled using CodableConcept or is it purely historical? If historical, is there a plan to migrate them to use CodableConcepts? If there was a reason for specifically not using CodeableConcept, is there some documentation of that decision we'd be able to reference?