Replies: 9 comments
-
For example: Transformation should be straightforward and require less context (aka profiles, valuesets etc), it should be possible to implement it inside database |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
One thing we could consider is constructing the spec in levels, each of which would build on the transforms in the previous level. E.g., Level 0 - base level transforms
Level 1 - transforms to standardize elements
Level 2 - transforms to flatten resources into common representations
Level 3 - analytic aggregates, quality calculations, standard reports? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I like it! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm wary of using levels like this because I suspect it would be difficult to have a conversation about the standard then and folks will be getting confused. Does anyone else see the same? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I suggest having 4 named levels:
Give each Transformation it's name:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yep, that would work! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
And I'm still not sure about optional transformations. Looks like, for simplicity and portability, we have to choose only the required transformations! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Looks like we are getting to the conclusion that we need a minimal set of transformations:
What other required transformations do we need? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We need a few design principles for SQL on FHIR!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions