Difference between revisions of "HL7 FHIR Provenance Resource"
JohnMoehrke (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*show how a resource and provenance would look as that resource transitions through lifecycle. In this way one would be able to find each step of the lifecycle, by way of version; and the provenance statement by way of the pointer to that version specific. | *show how a resource and provenance would look as that resource transitions through lifecycle. In this way one would be able to find each step of the lifecycle, by way of version; and the provenance statement by way of the pointer to that version specific. | ||
| − | =from Gforge= | + | =[Change Proposals from Gforge]= |
November 3, 2015 | November 3, 2015 | ||
*[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=7563 7563] 2015May core #854 - Expand on how to use Provenance () | *[http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=7563 7563] 2015May core #854 - Expand on how to use Provenance () | ||
Revision as of 10:03, 18 November 2015
Back to HL7 FHIR Security Topics
Contents
Work Plan
FHIR Provenance Resource DSTU 1 Provenance Resource Current
- Address outstanding Provenance CPs from January 2015 FHIR Ballot mistakenly assigned to FHIR Infrastructure
- Including signature use within Provenance
- Provenance.activity value-set needs to be enlarged with existing vocabulary, and discussion around if it should be marked as Extensible.
- Provenance.entity.role unclear how each vocabulary item should be used.
- how is derivation to be used?
- how is revision to be used, other than the duplicate indication that would be in Provenance.activity.
- Provenance.reason binding only to the PurposeOfUse is not granular. Seems there should be a more clear distinction between reason and activity. question on why this is Extensible
- show how a resource and provenance would look as that resource transitions through lifecycle. In this way one would be able to find each step of the lifecycle, by way of version; and the provenance statement by way of the pointer to that version specific.
[Change Proposals from Gforge]
November 3, 2015
- 7563 2015May core #854 - Expand on how to use Provenance ()
- 7567 2015May core #858 - Provenance isn't sufficiently aligned with w3c spec ()
- 7568 2015May core #859 - How are agent and activity linked? ()
- 7569 2015May core #860 - Clarify relationship agents and entities used in activity ()
- 7570 2015May core #861 - Clarify relationship agents and entities used in activity ()
- 7597 2015May core #888 - This resource is missing any reference to the "action" performed on the entity. Is there a default "create" action or is it an omission? ()
- 7598 2015May core #889 - Can Provenance apply to a resource or just a data element ()
- 8638 how does Provenance work when deleting records ()
- 8803 Provenance for a subset of a resource ()
Proposals
FHIR Provenance Resource Vocabulary
At this juncture, Provenance has several areas of concern for the Security WG. The first concern is whether the current HL7 ProvenanceEvent value set is sufficient for conveying the states to which a trigger event can cause an activity to transition the FHIR Resource target of the Provenance Resource from a previous state. The current value set was will be updated post DSTU2.
While the intended FHIR ProvenanceEvent value set has sub-value sets from multiple sources such as W3C and HL7, there are some duplicate and colliding definitions, the upside is that there are more provenance event related actions than in the HL7 ProvenanceEvent value set."
