Obligation Discussion
0.5.1 - Working Draft to present the Concept Ideas and Background Details (FO)
Obligation Discussion, published by . This guide is not an authorized publication; it is the continuous build for version 0.5.1 built by the FHIR (HL7® FHIR® Standard) CI Build. This version is based on the current content of https://github.com/frankoemig/obligation/ and changes regularly. See the Directory of published versions
We need to provide some example definitions for actors and obligations to clarify and explain how to use what is described here.
We have two options to combine profiles with actors/obligations:
| Number | Definitions | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| d1 | profile 0..* <- 1 actor 0..* <-> 0..* obligation | actor is in the middle |
| d2 | profile 0..* <- 1 obligation 1..* <- 1 actor | obligation is in the middle |
| d3 | data requirement <- profile 0..* <- 1 functional requirement 1..* <- 1 actor | obligation surrounding profiles |
We can define actors and obligations either based on FHIR (at least as far as possible), or start from scratch:
| Foundation | based on FHIR | completely from scratch |
|---|---|---|
| Actor | ActorDefinition | Actorxxxx |
| Obligation | Obligation1Definition | Obligation2Definition |
| Pairing | Combination | Naming convention |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | one:many | p1 |
| 2 | one:one | p2 |
| 3 | many:one | p3 |
A set of example instances must be created that illustrate the use of those definitions. Each instance belongs to one option and one pairing. Therefore, the following naming convention is used:
d9p9ex99
Where d9 is the definition model p9 the pairing combination, and ex99 the example instance.