This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Requirements-Context Binding"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
EdSeidewitz (talk | contribs) (Added OMG mapping tags.) |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
{| border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600" | {| border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600" | ||
| '''Requirement''' | | '''Requirement''' | ||
− | | It must be possible to take a given abstract content definition ([[Requirements-Concept Domains|Concept Domain]]) and identify the specific set of codes ([[Requirements-Value | + | | It must be possible to take a given abstract content definition ([[Requirements-Concept Domains|Concept Domain]]) and identify the specific set of codes with specific conformance expectations ([[Requirements-Value Set Conformance|Value Set Conformance]]) that can be used in a given context ([[Requirement-Binding Realms|Binding Realm]]) |
|- | |- | ||
| ''Rationale'' | | ''Rationale'' | ||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
*mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/@bindingRealmName | *mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/@bindingRealmName | ||
*mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/boundValueSet | *mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/boundValueSet | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | ''OMG'' | ||
+ | | {{OMG-MIF-In UML}} Presuming that concept domains, binding realms and value sets are all represented in UML as classifiers, then a context binding can be represented as a ternary association between them (probably stereotyped, per below). | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 55: | Line 58: | ||
*mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/@effectiveDate | *mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/@effectiveDate | ||
*mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/@expiryDate | *mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/@expiryDate | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | ''OMG'' | ||
+ | | {{OMG-MIF-HL7 Profile}} Tagged values of a stereotype on the association representing the context binding. | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 63: | Line 69: | ||
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600" | {| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600" | ||
|'''Supplemental Requirement''' | |'''Supplemental Requirement''' | ||
− | | The set of codes used to cover a concept space by a given implementation must not have more than one | + | | The set of codes used to cover a concept space by a given implementation must not have more than one code drawn from more than one code system to represent a given concept |
|- | |- | ||
| ''Rationale'' | | ''Rationale'' | ||
Line 79: | Line 85: | ||
| | | | ||
*mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/@bindingPriority | *mif-model-vocabulary.xsd/ContextBinding/@bindingPriority | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | ''OMG'' | ||
+ | | {{OMG-MIF-HL7 Profile}} The binding priority can be represented as a tagged value of the stereotype on the association representing the context binding. | ||
|} | |} |
Latest revision as of 17:07, 1 September 2010
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. For example, in a universal pharmacy ballot, it may be appropriate to constrain an attribute to codes of type "Orderable Drug" even though it is not possible to identify the specific codes due to varying regulatory requirements in different countries. |
Rationale |
|
Methodology |
Requirement | It must be possible to take a given abstract content definition (Concept Domain) and identify the specific set of codes with specific conformance expectations (Value Set Conformance) that can be used in a given context (Binding Realm) |
Rationale | This is a definition of what the Context Binding methodology is. |
Methodology | |
MIF |
|
OMG | Presuming that concept domains, binding realms and value sets are all represented in UML as classifiers, then a context binding can be represented as a ternary association between them (probably stereotyped, per below). |
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 |
|
OMG | Tagged values of a stereotype on the association representing the context binding. |
Requirement | Multiple independent sets of codes may be simultaneously considered 'valid' for a single concept domain within a specified context.
| ||||
Rationale |
| ||||
MIF |
| ||||
OMG | The binding priority can be represented as a tagged value of the stereotype on the association representing the context binding. |