Zib-AnatomicalLocation

[ArdonToonstra]

Initial commit of new profiling proposal based on recent discussions (https://nictiz.atlassian.net/browse/ZIBFHIR2024-173).

[ArdonToonstra]

Reworked the profiles by moving the location binding from CodeableConcept.coding to CodeableConcept. Also added all QA requirements, including release-notes based on a newly created public jira ticket (https://nictiz.atlassian.net/browse/ZIBFHIR-113)

Tested this approach using a dummy profile and multiple examples:

• Forge does not remove the binding when opened in host profile (it does when you open and resave the AnatomicalLocation profile on CodeableConcept)
• No validator errors.
• However, I was not able to trigger a validation error with incorrect values in in the host profile while having a Required binding in the datatype profile. This was both the case for the Java and .NET validator. This might require further investigation.

Also, the QA gives a "Fail: "check nl-core overrides" --> but I don't understand why...

@pieter-edelman-nictiz would you be willing to have another look?

[pieter-edelman-nictiz]

The QA error is quite trivial; in the nl-core profile, you should override the mention of “zib-” profile to the “nl-core-” profile.

[pieter-edelman-nictiz]

When generating a snapshot in Forge or using the HL7 Validator, the binding from the dataset profile is ignored and reverts to the default from the base resource.

[ArdonToonstra]

When generating a snapshot in Forge or using the HL7 Validator, the binding from the dataset profile is ignored and reverts to the default from the base resource.

@pieter-edelman-nictiz , thanks for checking. I will investigate further... I posed this point on zulip. Might want to include this then to our list of things to check. If it doesn't work out in before publication time, we can revert back to the 'old' way and include the binding in the host profiles. Agree?

[ArdonToonstra]

@pieter-edelman-nictiz / @LuudSlagter - could one of you review this PR?
Because of reasons mentioned in https://nictiz.atlassian.net/browse/ZIBFHIR-113 we revert back to using the ValueSet binding in the host profile. This has been processed in the profiles.

Moreover, I believe with the current profiling it is possible to only provide a laterality, if necessary. Because of the ' Required' binding in the host profile it is currently not possible to send only the laterality concept in the BodyStructure resource because a code is expected...

[ArdonToonstra]

Sorry about the previous to send message. I updated the profile by mapping Location on a slice of CodeableConcept.coding because this is the only way to allow the population of only Laterality. In comparison to the first mapping on .coding this differs because it is mapped on a slice. So it is possible to send additional codes too.

Lastly, I added documentation why we choose this profiling approach. It is on a comment field of CodeableConcept.coding . Please review.

[ArdonToonstra]

@pieter-edelman-nictiz good to go?