Replies: 3 comments 3 replies
-
Hi Jorn - let's see how we can improve this situation. There are two major parts at work here:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Following this discussion I'd argue that it should neither be an error nor a warning.
I've tried a workaround: as a test I added a simple codeSystem to my package that defined the missing codes and CodeSystems. However, the error, nor the warnings went away. My suggestion would be to validate the coding.system and throw an informational notification when the coding.code cannot be validated. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We've improved the situation somewhat. There is now a |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi!
First of all, apologies for lacking any specific background knowledge of the .NET SDK. I am a mere Simplifier end-user, raising this discussion from a Firely Service Desk ticket (SD-1132).
At Nictiz, the functional specification we base our profiles on (the zibs) prescribes the use of 'external' code systems, which we can't import in FHIR and which we don't want to, because we feel the party that maintains it should. However, to make the situation work, we create
CodeSystem
s with.content
set to not-present. TheseCodeSystem
s do therefore not contain any.concept
s. For example, see https://simplifier.net/packages/nictiz.fhir.nl.r4.zib2020/0.3.0-beta1/files/593597/~xmlAs a consequence, the
ValueSet
s refering to theseCodeSystem
s include "the whole of theCodeSystem
", also without specifying any.concept
s. For example: https://simplifier.net/packages/nictiz.fhir.nl.r4.zib2020/0.3.0-beta1/files/593584/~xmlWhen validating a resource using a code from this
ValueSet
/CodeSystem
, we get the following error:CodeInvalid : Code '71587' from system 'urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.4.1' does not exist in valueset 'http:https://decor.nictiz.nl/fhir/ValueSet/2.16.840.1.113883.2.4.3.11.60.121.11.12--20200901000000'
We feel that this should be a warning instead of an error, with the message stating something in the spirit of "All codes from system 'XXX' are allowed, but this specific code 'XXX' could not be checked.". Because, in this case, the code '71587' just isn't invalid, it's just that you can't check it specifically, which is a whole different problem.
We understand from the Firely ticket that you state that this is a deliberate choice, stating it would be dangerous to report success (kind of paraphrasing here). In our opinion, throwing a warning does not equal success. Furthermore, doesn’t this statement make the
CodeSystem.content
element worthless for any other code than complete (https://hl7.org/fhir/r4/valueset-codesystem-content-mode.html)? From a pure FHIR perspective I can understand the viewpoint, but this just isn't the world we are living in - not every code system out there is captured in a correctCodeSystem
resource (yet, hopefully).Hope to get some discussion on this! Thanks
Jorn Duwel
Nictiz
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions