November 18, 2015

Back to CBCC Wiki: Meetings

Back to HL7 FHIR Consent Directive Project

Agenda

• Discuss FHIR Methodology wrt to use of Resource and Profile "type" and "sub-type" elements. Last call, John asserted that the only codes that are permitted in the FHIR CD type element is = Consent. Kathleen disagreed as this would require every Resource to include an additional element "profile type" in order for profiles to use the Resource.type element to further specify profile types.
  • John -- Not what I said. The way a resource instance indicates that it is conformant to a profile is through the meta tag. What I asserted is that our ConsentDirective profile would indicate that the Contract.type be fixed at some value (e.g. "Privacy Consent") to differentiate privacy consents from other contract types. This does not mean that all Contracts with that type (e.g. "Privacy Consent") are conformant to the ConsentDirective profile. So, I am just indicating what a Profile would 'constrain', having nothing to do with how an instance would declare that it is conforming to that profile. Specifically an instance of a resource must be fully descriptive, it can't require that someone look at the profile conformance to understand the meaning. So, one must be able to tell by the resource elements what the meaning is.
• Discuss other submitted use cases depending on who attends
• Discuss example made from Pat's #1 use-case
  • http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Example-Consent-OptIn-NotLabs

Attendees

	Member Name		x	Member Name		x	Member Name
	Johnathan ColemanCBCC Co-Chair			Kathleen Connor			Tarik Idris
	William Kinsley			Russell McDonell			John Moehrke Security Co-Chair
	Marty Prahl			Diana Proud-Madruga			Pat Pyette
	Andrew Torres			[1]			[2]