Release 5 Draft Ballot

This is the Continuous Integration Build of FHIR (will be incorrect/inconsistent at times).
See the Directory of published versions

Codesystem-concept-map-equivalence.xml

FHIR Infrastructure Work GroupMaturity Level: N/AStandards Status: Informative

Raw XML (canonical form + also see XML Format Specification)

Definition for Code System ConceptMapEquivalence

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<CodeSystem xmlns="http://hl7.org/fhir">
  <id value="concept-map-equivalence"/> 
  <meta> 
    <lastUpdated value="2022-05-17T15:24:24.905+00:00"/> 
  </meta> 
  <text> 
    <status value="generated"/> 
    <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
      <p> This code system http://hl7.org/fhir/concept-map-equivalence defines the following codes:</p> 
      <table class="codes">
        <tr> 
          <td> 
            <b> Lvl</b> 
          </td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">
            <b> Code</b> 
          </td> 
          <td> 
            <b> Display</b> 
          </td> 
          <td> 
            <b> Definition</b> 
          </td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 1</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">relatedto
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-relatedto"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Related To</td> 
          <td> The concepts are related to each other, and have at least some overlap in meaning, but
             the exact relationship is not known.</td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 2</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">  equivalent
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-equivalent"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Equivalent</td> 
          <td> The definitions of the concepts mean the same thing (including when structural implications
             of meaning are considered) (i.e. extensionally identical).</td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 3</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">    equal
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-equal"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Equal</td> 
          <td> The definitions of the concepts are exactly the same (i.e. only grammatical differences)
             and structural implications of meaning are identical or irrelevant (i.e. intentionally
             identical).</td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 2</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">  wider
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-wider"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Wider</td> 
          <td> The target mapping is wider in meaning than the source concept.</td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 2</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">  subsumes
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-subsumes"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Subsumes</td> 
          <td> The target mapping subsumes the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the source is-a target).</td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 2</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">  narrower
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-narrower"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Narrower</td> 
          <td> The target mapping is narrower in meaning than the source concept. The sense in which
             the mapping is narrower SHALL be described in the comments in this case, and applications
             should be careful when attempting to use these mappings operationally.</td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 2</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">  specializes
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-specializes"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Specializes</td> 
          <td> The target mapping specializes the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the target is-a
             source).</td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 2</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">  inexact
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-inexact"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Inexact</td> 
          <td> The target mapping overlaps with the source concept, but both source and target cover
             additional meaning, or the definitions are imprecise and it is uncertain whether they
             have the same boundaries to their meaning. The sense in which the mapping is inexact SHALL
             be described in the comments in this case, and applications should be careful when attempting
             to use these mappings operationally.</td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 1</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">unmatched
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-unmatched"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Unmatched</td> 
          <td> There is no match for this concept in the target code system.</td> 
        </tr> 
        <tr> 
          <td> 2</td> 
          <td style="white-space:nowrap">  disjoint
            <a name="concept-map-equivalence-disjoint"> </a> 
          </td> 
          <td> Disjoint</td> 
          <td> This is an explicit assertion that there is no mapping between the source and target concept.</td> 
        </tr> 
      </table> 
    </div> 
  </text> 
  <extension url="http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/structuredefinition-wg">
    <valueCode value="fhir"/> 
  </extension> 
  <url value="http://hl7.org/fhir/concept-map-equivalence"/> 
  <identifier> 
    <system value="urn:ietf:rfc:3986"/> 
    <value value="urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.4.642.1.18"/> 
  </identifier> 
  <version value="4.6.0"/> 
  <name value="ConceptMapEquivalence"/> 
  <title value="ConceptMapEquivalence"/> 
  <status value="draft"/> 
  <experimental value="false"/> 
  <date value="2022-05-17T15:24:24+00:00"/> 
  <description value="The degree of equivalence between concepts."/> 
  <caseSensitive value="true"/> 
  <valueSet value="http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/concept-map-equivalence"/> 
  <content value="complete"/> 
  <concept> 
    <code value="relatedto"/> 
    <display value="Related To"/> 
    <definition value="The concepts are related to each other, and have at least some overlap in meaning, but
     the exact relationship is not known."/> 
    <concept> 
      <code value="equivalent"/> 
      <display value="Equivalent"/> 
      <definition value="The definitions of the concepts mean the same thing (including when structural implications
       of meaning are considered) (i.e. extensionally identical)."/> 
      <concept> 
        <code value="equal"/> 
        <display value="Equal"/> 
        <definition value="The definitions of the concepts are exactly the same (i.e. only grammatical differences)
         and structural implications of meaning are identical or irrelevant (i.e. intentionally
         identical)."/> 
      </concept> 
    </concept> 
    <concept> 
      <code value="wider"/> 
      <display value="Wider"/> 
      <definition value="The target mapping is wider in meaning than the source concept."/> 
    </concept> 
    <concept> 
      <code value="subsumes"/> 
      <display value="Subsumes"/> 
      <definition value="The target mapping subsumes the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the source is-a target)."/> 
    </concept> 
    <concept> 
      <code value="narrower"/> 
      <display value="Narrower"/> 
      <definition value="The target mapping is narrower in meaning than the source concept. The sense in which
       the mapping is narrower SHALL be described in the comments in this case, and applications
       should be careful when attempting to use these mappings operationally."/> 
    </concept> 
    <concept> 
      <code value="specializes"/> 
      <display value="Specializes"/> 
      <definition value="The target mapping specializes the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the target is-a
       source)."/> 
    </concept> 
    <concept> 
      <code value="inexact"/> 
      <display value="Inexact"/> 
      <definition value="The target mapping overlaps with the source concept, but both source and target cover
       additional meaning, or the definitions are imprecise and it is uncertain whether they
       have the same boundaries to their meaning. The sense in which the mapping is inexact SHALL
       be described in the comments in this case, and applications should be careful when attempting
       to use these mappings operationally."/> 
    </concept> 
  </concept> 
  <concept> 
    <code value="unmatched"/> 
    <display value="Unmatched"/> 
    <definition value="There is no match for this concept in the target code system."/> 
    <concept> 
      <code value="disjoint"/> 
      <display value="Disjoint"/> 
      <definition value="This is an explicit assertion that there is no mapping between the source and target concept."/> 
    </concept> 
  </concept> 
</CodeSystem> 

Usage note: every effort has been made to ensure that the examples are correct and useful, but they are not a normative part of the specification.