This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "FHIR Principles"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ewoutkramer (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
* Focus publication on documenting what the implementer needs, not what the modelers thought or designers need to remember | * Focus publication on documenting what the implementer needs, not what the modelers thought or designers need to remember | ||
* Designs the physical, not the abstract | * Designs the physical, not the abstract | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Lloyd: I think the above are design principles or guidelines rather than "Core Principles". Here's my take on Core Principles (not to be confused with the MnM doc of the same name): | ||
+ | * <b>Implementation focused:</b> All other things being equal, FHIR will adopt the approach that will make implementation easiest for the largest portion of the potential implementation community | ||
+ | * <b>Succinct:</b> FHIR will keep documentation as simple as possible while still providing the detail needed for safe interoperability | ||
+ | * <b>Poly-paradigm:</b> FHIR will support REST, messaging, document & services paradigms using the same set of structures | ||
+ | * <b>80% elements:</b> FHIR will directly support only those elements used by (or expected to be used by) 80% of implementers, everything else is handled as extensions. | ||
+ | * <b>99% of domain:</b> FHIR will cover the domain space of 99% of healthcare implementations | ||
+ | * <b>Minimal tooling:</b> FHIR will avoid dependency on complex and non open-source tooling as much as possible |
Revision as of 15:59, 29 August 2012
Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) defines a set of resources for use in exchanging information about the healthcare processes.
Resources
- Are the smallest unit of interchange and have a fixed and clear boundary
- Can be managed and understood in isolation: its data can be understood without requiring other referenced resources or context
- Are useable, without alteration, in RESTful environments, classic message exchanges, human-centric clinical documents and enterprise SOA architecture
- Should be very common and useable in many different business transactions and be applicable for a wide spectrum of users and nationalities
- Should differ from each other in meaning, not just in usage
- Should be non-overlapping
- Need to have a natural identity
- Can have a lifecycle of its own, but should not tie concepts together that have independent life cycles.
Attributes
- Resources contain only those attributes that are relevant to 80% of the implementers.
- Allow easy extension for the remaining 20% of elements
- Should only repeat if 80% of implementers will need repetitions
- Should only be “mandatory” if the resource would be unusable without the data element present
FHIR
- Uses open internet standards where possible or appropriate
- Focus publication on documenting what the implementer needs, not what the modelers thought or designers need to remember
- Designs the physical, not the abstract
Lloyd: I think the above are design principles or guidelines rather than "Core Principles". Here's my take on Core Principles (not to be confused with the MnM doc of the same name):
- Implementation focused: All other things being equal, FHIR will adopt the approach that will make implementation easiest for the largest portion of the potential implementation community
- Succinct: FHIR will keep documentation as simple as possible while still providing the detail needed for safe interoperability
- Poly-paradigm: FHIR will support REST, messaging, document & services paradigms using the same set of structures
- 80% elements: FHIR will directly support only those elements used by (or expected to be used by) 80% of implementers, everything else is handled as extensions.
- 99% of domain: FHIR will cover the domain space of 99% of healthcare implementations
- Minimal tooling: FHIR will avoid dependency on complex and non open-source tooling as much as possible