HL7 FHIR security topics

Project ID 1209

FHIR disposition link on gForge for review/discussion (ongoing weekly agenda item)

Export from Gforge Security Open

Wiki

3318 Clarify how to use RBAC and ABAC using FHIR ()
5525 Consent Directive does not appear to be aligned with the 80% ()
6303 Add Record Lifecycle Events to AuditEventObjectLifecycle Set ()
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 ()
8731 Canonicalization for signatures ()
8738 Unapplied QA changes around security and services ()
8790 Give guidance on AuditEvent that codes don't need DisplayName populated ()
8803 Provenance for a subset of a resource ()
8827 Signature datatype does not include counter-signature type ()

Security pages
- Including guidance on Authentication and Authorization
- Security Labels Page
  - including meta tag use for security labels
Signature Data Type

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.
Detailed work plan and notes HL7 FHIR Provenance Resource

Address outstanding AuditEvent CPs from January 2015 FHIR Ballot mistakenly assigned to FHIR Infrastructure
- harmonize the structure, element names, and vocabulary as much as possible with Provenance.
- document use cases for interoperable FHIR AuditEvent - e.g., federated system with central AuditEvent Service - intra- and inter-enterprise.
- address the thought experiment of why do we have both Provenance and AuditEvent. (motivation vs consequence) (medical records vs security surveillance)
- Who records Provenance vs AuditEvent; what are the various architectures. The important point is to assure that the architecture chosen doesn't miss information.
and various other things concerning Security -- Risks to Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
also interested in
- W5
- Privacy Consent as a profile on Contract