Mapping between the existing KMEHR values and the new FHIR values

[bdc-ehealth]

@ipollet

The semantics of the mapping between the existing KMEHR valuesets and FHIR valueset is important. We should have a concrete solution for this, and preferably also a general one.

[bdc-ehealth]

WG: on a logical level, we will only add to the existing KMEHR valuesets. The logical mapping between KMEHR and FHIR will be present in the business rules document.

[annenerenhausen]

The mapping Will be reviewed in the document

[AlexisVZ-MDS]

The original question is about THE SEMANTICS of the mapping between kmehr and fhir ... and having both a "concrete and general" solution for this.

The answer seems to be at the functional level, about the logical mapping being documented in the business rules document.

Is that enough (for Isabelle and all others) ? @ipollet

Or do we want a more formally and technically usable mapping, for example in a FHIR ConceptMap, cf. https://chat.openai.com/share/fd3b43d8-b5dc-4659-9308-a96cac29aa35 Personally, I think it makes sense to do it (to have a more complete fhir specification, to force us to go through the constraints of mapping in fhir, for learning to use this type of fhir resource, for automating based on this resource instead of "hard coded" mapping, for possible later updates of the mapping, for uniform implementation across all implementing softwares ... )

[AlexisVZ-MDS]

The mapping Will be reviewed in the document

This is about the mapping schema 1.1.2 in the document Business Rules 1.1: Category (logical) should not be mapped on Scope (fhir) and Willcode (logical) should not be mapped on Category (fhir).