feature-assertion vs feature-assertion

Profile Comparison between http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion vs http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion

Left:

Feature Assertion (http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion)

Right:

Feature Assertion (http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion)

Messages

Information

StructureDefinition.status

Values for status differ: 'draft' vs 'active'

Warning

StructureDefinition.experimental

Values for experimental differ: 'true' vs 'false'

Information

StructureDefinition.short

Values for short differ: 'Extension' vs 'Additional content defined by implementations'

Information

StructureDefinition.definition

Values for definition differ: 'An Extension' vs 'May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.'

Information

Extension.extension

Element minimum cardinalities differ: '0' vs '2'

Information

Extension.extension

Element maximum cardinalities differ: '0' vs '2147483647'

Error

Extension.extension

Element minimum cardinalities conflict: '0..0' vs '2..2147483647': No instances can be valid against both profiles

Information

StructureDefinition.short

Values for short differ: 'A code that identifies a feature' vs 'Value of extension'

Information

StructureDefinition.definition

Values for definition differ: 'A code that identifies a feature. CodeSystem as defined by the Application Feature Framework (tbd: how to reference that from here, or should we move the extension?)' vs 'Value of extension - must be one of a constrained set of the data types (see [Extensibility](http://hl7.org/fhir/R5/extensibility.html) for a list).'

Information

Extension.value[x]

Element minimum cardinalities differ: '1' vs '0'

Information

Extension.value[x]

Element maximum cardinalities differ: '1' vs '0'

Error

Extension.value[x]

Element minimum cardinalities conflict: '1..1' vs '0..0': No instances can be valid against both profiles

Metadata

Name	Value	Comments
abstract	false
baseDefinition	http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/Extension
copyright
description	This extension asserts that the data in a resource was authored (collected/handled/created/transformed) by an application that claims conformance to the definition of a feature. Note that 'authoring' is often a client function, but that is not always the case. For further information about features, see the [Application Feature Framework Implementation Guide](https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/capstmt/specification.html). As an example of the kind of use this extension might support, an application could choose to only use value set expansions that are explicitly labeled as 'prepared under the conformance rules defined in the [CRMI implementation guide](https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/crmi-ig). This extension is a statement about the provenance of a particular version of the resource that it is describing; as such, it should be made in a Provenance resource referring to that particular version. Alternatively, the extension can be placed in the resource about which the assertion is made (in Resource.meta); in this case, the assertion SHOULD be removed when the resource data is altered (it may be replaced by a new assertion). This assertion is often used to drive processing rules associated with the trustworthiness of the data in the resource. Applications/specifications/workflows that make use of this assertion should carefully consider the integrity of the chain of handling from the source the processing before choosing to trust the assertion. A more complex alternative to this profile is to use the [[[http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/obligations-profile]]] extension.	This extension asserts that the data in a resource was authored (collected/handled/created/transformed) by an application that claims conformance to the definition of a feature. Note that 'authoring' is often a client function, but that is not always the case. For further information about features, see the [Application Feature Framework Implementation Guide](https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/capstmt/specification.html). As an example of the kind of use this extension might support, an application could choose to only use value set expansions that are explicitly labeled as 'prepared under the conformance rules defined in the [CRMI implementation guide](https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/crmi-ig). This extension is a statement about the provenance of a resource and is placed in the resource about which the assertion is made. The assertion SHOULD be removed when the resource data is altered (it may be replaced by a new assertion). See the related extension for [declaring feature conformance in the Provenance](StructureDefinition-target-feature-assertion.html)'. This assertion is often used to drive processing rules associated with the trustworthiness of the data in the resource. Applications/specifications/workflows that make use of this assertion should carefully consider the integrity of the chain of handling from the source the processing before choosing to trust the assertion. A more complex alternative to this profile is to use the [[[http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/obligations-profile]]] extension.	Values Differ
experimental	true	false	Values Differ
fhirVersion	5.0.0
jurisdiction
jurisdiction[0]	http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm#001
kind	complex-type
name	FeatureAsssertion
publisher	HL7 International / FHIR Infrastructure
purpose
status	draft	active	Values Differ
title	Feature Assertion
type	Extension
url	http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion

Name

Value

Comments

abstract

false

baseDefinition

http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/Extension

description

This extension asserts that the data in a resource was authored (collected/handled/created/transformed) by an application that claims conformance to the definition of a feature. Note that 'authoring' is often a client function, but that is not always the case. For further information about features, see the [Application Feature Framework Implementation Guide](https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/capstmt/specification.html). As an example of the kind of use this extension might support, an application could choose to only use value set expansions that are explicitly labeled as 'prepared under the conformance rules defined in the [CRMI implementation guide](https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/crmi-ig). This extension is a statement about the provenance of a particular version of the resource that it is describing; as such, it should be made in a Provenance resource referring to that particular version. Alternatively, the extension can be placed in the resource about which the assertion is made (in Resource.meta); in this case, the assertion SHOULD be removed when the resource data is altered (it may be replaced by a new assertion). This assertion is often used to drive processing rules associated with the trustworthiness of the data in the resource. Applications/specifications/workflows that make use of this assertion should carefully consider the integrity of the chain of handling from the source the processing before choosing to trust the assertion. A more complex alternative to this profile is to use the [[[http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/obligations-profile]]] extension.

This extension asserts that the data in a resource was authored (collected/handled/created/transformed) by an application that claims conformance to the definition of a feature. Note that 'authoring' is often a client function, but that is not always the case. For further information about features, see the [Application Feature Framework Implementation Guide](https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/capstmt/specification.html). As an example of the kind of use this extension might support, an application could choose to only use value set expansions that are explicitly labeled as 'prepared under the conformance rules defined in the [CRMI implementation guide](https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/crmi-ig). This extension is a statement about the provenance of a resource and is placed in the resource about which the assertion is made. The assertion SHOULD be removed when the resource data is altered (it may be replaced by a new assertion). See the related extension for [declaring feature conformance in the Provenance](StructureDefinition-target-feature-assertion.html)'. This assertion is often used to drive processing rules associated with the trustworthiness of the data in the resource. Applications/specifications/workflows that make use of this assertion should carefully consider the integrity of the chain of handling from the source the processing before choosing to trust the assertion. A more complex alternative to this profile is to use the [[[http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/obligations-profile]]] extension.

Values Differ

experimental

true

false

Values Differ

fhirVersion

5.0.0

jurisdiction

jurisdiction[0]

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm#001

kind

complex-type

name

FeatureAsssertion

publisher

HL7 International / FHIR Infrastructure

purpose

status

draft

active

Values Differ

title

Feature Assertion

type

Extension

url

http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion

Structure

Name	L Card.	L Type	L Description & Constraints	R Card.	R Type	R Description & Constraints	Comments
Extension	0..*	Extension	Authored by an application conforming to a set of obligations	0..*	Extension	Authored by an application conforming to a set of obligations
id	0..1	id	Unique id for inter-element referencing	0..1	id	Unique id for inter-element referencing
Slices for extension	0..0		Extension Slice: Unordered, Open by value:url	2..*	Extension	Additional content defined by implementations Slice: Unordered, Open by value:url	Element minimum cardinalities differ: '0' vs '2' Element maximum cardinalities differ: '0' vs '2147483647' Element minimum cardinalities conflict: '0..0' vs '2..2147483647': No instances can be valid against both profiles
url	1..1	uri	"http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion"	1..1	uri	"http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion"
value[x]	1..1	Coding	A code that identifies a feature	0..0		Value of extension	Element minimum cardinalities differ: '1' vs '0' Element maximum cardinalities differ: '1' vs '0' Element minimum cardinalities conflict: '1..1' vs '0..0': No instances can be valid against both profiles
Documentation for this format

L Description & Constraints

R Flags

R Card.

R Type

R Description & Constraints

Comments

Extension

0..*

Extension

Authored by an application conforming to a set of obligations

0..*

Extension

Authored by an application conforming to a set of obligations

0..1

Unique id for inter-element referencing

0..1

Unique id for inter-element referencing

Slices for extension

0..0

Extension
Slice: Unordered, Open by value:url

2..*

Extension

Additional content defined by implementations
Slice: Unordered, Open by value:url

Element minimum cardinalities differ: '0' vs '2'
Element maximum cardinalities differ: '0' vs '2147483647'
Element minimum cardinalities conflict: '0..0' vs '2..2147483647': No instances can be valid against both profiles

url

1..1

uri

"http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion"

1..1

uri

"http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/feature-assertion"

value[x]

1..1

Coding

A code that identifies a feature

0..0

Value of extension

Element minimum cardinalities differ: '1' vs '0'
Element maximum cardinalities differ: '1' vs '0'
Element minimum cardinalities conflict: '1..1' vs '0..0': No instances can be valid against both profiles

Documentation for this format