This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "RequirementsValue Set Conformance"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:  Line 4:  
{ border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600"  { border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600"  
 '''Requirement'''   '''Requirement'''  
−   When identifying the set of codes associated with an element, there's a need to identify the total set of codes that are potentially allowed to be sent, regardless of whether all implementations will support all codes.  +   When identifying the set of codes associated with an element, there's a need to identify the total set of codes ([[RequirementsValue SetsValue Set]]) that are potentially allowed to be sent, regardless of whether all implementations will support all codes. 
    
 ''Rationale''   ''Rationale''  
Line 17:  Line 17:  
{ border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600"  { border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600"  
 '''Requirement'''   '''Requirement'''  
−   When identifying the set of codes associated with an element, there's a need to know what subset of those must be fully supported by implementations.  +   When defining a set of codes for use in a specification, there's a need to differentiate whether the set of codes ([[RequirementsValue SetsValue Set]]) 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''  
+    
+  * Not all code systems or sets of code systems will necessarily fully encompass a domain space  
+  * New concepts can arise that need to be communicated before a code is available in a standardized code system  
+    
+   ''Methodology''  
+    
+  Coding Strength is a conformance assertion that indicates whether the base set of codes referenced represents the complete set of codes allowed to be used or whether the set of codes can be supplemented with local codes or original text in circumstances where the concept can't be appropriately represented with one of the codes in the approved set.  
+  
+  Allowed values are:  
+  *CWE (Coded with Extensibility), indicating that local codes or original text is allowed.  
+  *CNE (Coded, no Extensibility), indicating that only the specified set of codes may be used  
+    
+  '''MIF'''  
+   mifcorestaticBase.xsd/VocabularyValueSetBinding/@codingStrength  
+  }  
+  
+  
+  { border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600"  
+   '''Requirement'''  
+   When identifying the set of codes associated with an element, there's a need to know what subset of those ([[RequirementsValue SetsValue Set]]) must be fully supported by implementations.  
    
 ''Rationale''   ''Rationale''  
Line 43:  Line 65:  
{ border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600"  { border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="600"  
 '''Requirement'''   '''Requirement'''  
−    +   There is a need to define reusable "sets" of codes that can be referenced as part of bindings 
    
 ''Rationale''   ''Rationale''  
    
−  *  +  * Coded data is a critical aspect of healthcare interoperability because coded data allows for better analysis, searching and decision support 
−  *  +  * A set of codes defined for one use may often be valuable for other uses. Given the maintenance effort required to define sets of codes, reuse of previously defined code sets is essential. 
    
 ''Methodology''   ''Methodology''  
−    +   [[RequirementsValue SetsValue Set]] 
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
−  
}  } 
Revision as of 18:50, 18 June 2009
When defining the set of codes allowed for a given element there's actually more to do than just referencing the set of codes. There's also a question of defining the conformance expectations for how the referenced set of codes are expected to be used. I.e. Are implementations restricted to the set of codes specified, must they support all of the codes, etc.
Requirement  When identifying the set of codes associated with an element, there's a need to identify the total set of codes (Value Set) that are potentially allowed to be sent, regardless of whether all implementations will support all codes. 
Rationale 

MIF  mifcorebase.xsd/VocabularyValueSetBinding/baseValueSet 
Requirement  When defining a set of codes for use in a specification, there's a need to differentiate whether the set of codes (Value Set) 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 is a conformance assertion that indicates whether the base set of codes referenced represents the complete set of codes allowed to be used or whether the set of codes can be supplemented with local codes or original text in circumstances where the concept can't be appropriately represented with one of the codes in the approved set. Allowed values are:

MIF  mifcorestaticBase.xsd/VocabularyValueSetBinding/@codingStrength 
Requirement  When identifying the set of codes associated with an element, there's a need to know what subset of those (Value Set) must be fully supported by implementations. 
Rationale 

MIF  mifcorebase.xsd/VocabularyValueSetBinding/minimumValueSet 
Requirement  When defining a constraint on an existing set of vocabulary, there's a need to differentiate between codes that are not supported (those outside the base value set) and will likely raise an error if transmitted and those that simply won't be processed but will not result in an error. 
Rationale 

MIF  mifcorebase.xsd/VocabularyValueSetBinding/ignoredValueSet 
Requirement  There is a need to define reusable "sets" of codes that can be referenced as part of bindings 
Rationale 

Methodology  Value Set 