Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-38057

DeviceDefinition and Device should use same "specialization" model

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive
    • Icon: Medium Medium
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • R5
    • Orders & Observations
    • Device
      DeviceDefinition
    • Hide

      Motion to reject as it is already covered in FHIR-40291, FHIR-39242, FHIR-39084.

      Show
      Motion to reject as it is already covered in FHIR-40291 , FHIR-39242 , FHIR-39084 .
    • Marti Velezis / Elliot Silver: 11-0-0

    Description

      It isn't clear why DeviceDefinition has specialization 0..* RelatedArtifact, yet Device has a {{specialization }}Backbone element  with three sub-elements. I would assume that the requirements are the same for both. The two should be aligned.

      Other elements that should be considered for alignment:

      • {{description }}(only present in DeviceDefinition)
      • manufacturer/partNumber (order differs)
      • {{modelNumber }}(ensure consistency for short and descriptions)
      • hasPart/parentDevice/parent (why do we have multiple approaches to the hierarchy, even within the same resource? parentDevice/parent name should be same)
      • languageCode }}(missing in {{{}Device. Also, why include "Code" in name?)
      • property.type (bind to the same valueset, use same long/short definitions)
      • {{property.value[x] }}(use same long/short definitions)

       

      Also, consider aligning element order, e.g. manufacturer, partNumber, safety.

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            esilver Elliot Silver
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: