This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Requirements-Context Binding"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| | | | ||
* Sometimes when codes are referenced in a specification, they're intended as "available" codes that define the set of codes that are allowed to be used without necessarily expecting a every application to support all of those codes | * Sometimes when codes are referenced in a specification, they're intended as "available" codes that define the set of codes that are allowed to be used without necessarily expecting a every application to support all of those codes | ||
− | * Sometimes when codes are referenced in a specification, they're intended to say "Don't die/choke/raise an error if you receive one of these codes | + | * Sometimes when codes are referenced in a specification, they're intended to say "Don't die/choke/raise an error if you receive one of these codes" |
* Sometimes when codes are referenced in a specification, they're intended to say "You MUST support this code" - i.e. you must be able to capture, display, process, understand, etc. this code. | * Sometimes when codes are referenced in a specification, they're intended to say "You MUST support this code" - i.e. you must be able to capture, display, process, understand, etc. this code. | ||
|- | |- |
Revision as of 16:58, 18 June 2009
Context binding is based on the concept of Concept Domains and Binding Realms. Initial model designs reference abstract concept domains that avoid referencing particular sets of codes. Specific sets of codes are then chosen within the context of a particular binding realm. For example, the set of codes used for diagnosis in the U.S. for human patients might be different than that chosen for veterinary patients in Canada.
MIF Reference: mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding
Requirement | HL7 Standards must be able to be constructed with coded elements that are not constrained to a specific set of codes, while still constraining the 'types' of codes that are considered appropriate and ensuring that consistent codes are used for a given concept across parts of a specification. |
Rationale |
|
Methodology |
Requirement | It must be possible to take a given abstract Concept Domain definition and identify the specific set of codes (Value Set) that can be used in a given context |
Rationale | This is a definition of what the Context Binding methodology is. |
MIF |
|
Requirement | When defining a set of codes allowed to be used in a particular standard, there is a need to know what the "expectations" are for support or use of those codes is for implementers to be considered compliant with that standard |
Rationale |
|
Methodology | Value Set Conformance |
Requirement | When defining a set of codes for use in a specification, there's a need to differentiate whether the set of codes is considered exhaustive (i.e. all codes must come from the specified value set) or as the base preferred set that must be used if an appropriate code is available. |
Rationale |
|
Methodology | Coding Strength |
Requirement | Context Bindings may change over time |
Rationale |
|
Methodology | Each vocabulary binding has a start date and may have an end date. (Bindings should not change frequently enough to necessitate a time component) |
MIF |
|
Requirement | Multiple independent sets of codes may be simultaneously considered 'valid' for a single concept domain within a specified context.
| ||||
Rationale |
| ||||
MIF |
|