A statement of relationships from one set of concepts to one or more other concepts - either concepts in code systems, or data element/data element concepts, or classes in class models.

An absolute URI that is used to identify this concept map when it is referenced in a specification, model, design or an instance; also called its canonical identifier. This SHOULD be globally unique and SHOULD be a literal address at which at which an authoritative instance of this concept map is (or will be) published. This URL can be the target of a canonical reference. It SHALL remain the same when the concept map is stored on different servers.

Allows the concept map to be referenced by a single globally unique identifier.

Can be a urn:uuid: or a urn:oid: but real http: addresses are preferred. Multiple instances may share the same URL if they have a distinct version.

The determination of when to create a new version of a resource (same url, new version) vs. defining a new artifact is up to the author. Considerations for making this decision are found in Technical and Business Versions.

In some cases, the resource can no longer be found at the stated url, but the url itself cannot change. Implementations can use the meta.source element to indicate where the current master source of the resource can be found.

A formal identifier that is used to identify this concept map when it is represented in other formats, or referenced in a specification, model, design or an instance.

Allows externally provided and/or usable business identifiers to be easily associated with the module.

Typically, this is used for identifiers that can go in an HL7 V3 II (instance identifier) data type, and can then identify this concept map outside of FHIR, where it is not possible to use the logical URI.

The identifier that is used to identify this version of the concept map when it is referenced in a specification, model, design or instance. This is an arbitrary value managed by the concept map author and is not expected to be globally unique. For example, it might be a timestamp (e.g. yyyymmdd) if a managed version is not available. There is also no expectation that versions can be placed in a lexicographical sequence.

There may be different concept map instances that have the same identifier but different versions. The version can be appended to the url in a reference to allow a reference to a particular business version of the concept map with the format [url]|[version].

A natural language name identifying the concept map. This name should be usable as an identifier for the module by machine processing applications such as code generation.

Support human navigation and code generation.

The name is not expected to be globally unique. The name should be a simple alphanumeric type name to ensure that it is machine-processing friendly.

A short, descriptive, user-friendly title for the concept map.

This name does not need to be machine-processing friendly and may contain punctuation, white-space, etc.

The status of this concept map. Enables tracking the life-cycle of the content.

Allows filtering of concept maps that are appropriate for use versus not.

A Boolean value to indicate that this concept map is authored for testing purposes (or education/evaluation/marketing) and is not intended to be used for genuine usage.

Enables experimental content to be developed following the same lifecycle that would be used for a production-level concept map.

Allows filtering of concept maps that are appropriate for use versus not.

The date (and optionally time) when the concept map was published. The date must change when the business version changes and it must change if the status code changes. In addition, it should change when the substantive content of the concept map changes.

Note that this is not the same as the resource last-modified-date, since the resource may be a secondary representation of the concept map. Additional specific dates may be added as extensions or be found by consulting Provenances associated with past versions of the resource.

The name of the organization or individual that published the concept map.

Helps establish the "authority/credibility" of the concept map. May also allow for contact.

Usually an organization but may be an individual. The publisher (or steward) of the concept map is the organization or individual primarily responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the concept map. This is not necessarily the same individual or organization that developed and initially authored the content. The publisher is the primary point of contact for questions or issues with the concept map. This item SHOULD be populated unless the information is available from context.

Contact details to assist a user in finding and communicating with the publisher.

May be a web site, an email address, a telephone number, etc.

A free text natural language description of the concept map from a consumer's perspective.

The description is not intended to describe the semantics of the concept map. The description should capture its intended use, which is needed for ensuring integrity for its use in models across future changes.

The content was developed with a focus and intent of supporting the contexts that are listed. These contexts may be general categories (gender, age, ...) or may be references to specific programs (insurance plans, studies, ...) and may be used to assist with indexing and searching for appropriate concept map instances.

Assist in searching for appropriate content.

When multiple useContexts are specified, there is no expectation that all or any of the contexts apply.

A legal or geographic region in which the concept map is intended to be used.

It may be possible for the concept map to be used in jurisdictions other than those for which it was originally designed or intended.

Explanation of why this concept map is needed and why it has been designed as it has.

This element does not describe the usage of the concept map. Instead, it provides traceability of ''why'' the resource is either needed or ''why'' it is defined as it is. This may be used to point to source materials or specifications that drove the structure of this concept map.

A copyright statement relating to the concept map and/or its contents. Copyright statements are generally legal restrictions on the use and publishing of the concept map.

Consumers must be able to determine any legal restrictions on the use of the concept map and/or its content.

Frequently the copyright differs between the concept map and codes that are included. The copyright statement should clearly differentiate between these when required.

Identifier for the source value set that contains the concepts that are being mapped and provides context for the mappings.

Should be a version specific reference. URIs SHOULD be absolute. If there is no source or target value set, there is no specified context for the map (not recommended). The source value set may select codes from either an explicit (standard or local) or implicit code system.

The target value set provides context for the mappings. Note that the mapping is made between concepts, not between value sets, but the value set provides important context about how the concept mapping choices are made.

Should be a version specific reference. URIs SHOULD be absolute. If there is no source or target value set, the is no specified context for the map.

A group of mappings that all have the same source and target system.

An absolute URI that identifies the source system where the concepts to be mapped are defined.

This is not needed if the source value set is specified and it contains concepts from only a single system.

The specific version of the code system, as determined by the code system authority.

The specification of a particular code system version may be required for code systems which lack concept permanence.

An absolute URI that identifies the target system that the concepts will be mapped to.

This is not needed if the target value set is specified and it contains concepts from only a single system. The group target may also be omitted if all of the target element relationship values are 'not-related-to'.

The specific version of the code system, as determined by the code system authority.

The specification of a particular code system version may be required for code systems which lack concept permanence.

Mappings for an individual concept in the source to one or more concepts in the target.

Generally, the ideal is that there would only be one mapping for each concept in the source value set, but a given concept may be mapped multiple times with different comments or dependencies.

Identity (code or path) or the element/item being mapped.

The display for the code. The display is only provided to help editors when editing the concept map.

The display is ignored when processing the map.

If noMap = true this indicates that no mapping to a target concept exists for this source concept.

A concept from the target value set that this concept maps to.

Ideally there would only be one map, with an 'equivalent' mapping. But multiple maps are allowed for several narrower (i.e. source-is-broader-than-target) options, or to assert that other concepts are not related.

Identity (code or path) or the element/item that the map refers to.

The display for the code. The display is only provided to help editors when editing the concept map.

The display is ignored when processing the map.

The relationship between the source and target concepts. The relationship is read from source to target (e.g. source-is-narrower-than-target).

This element is labeled as a modifier because it may indicate that there is no mapping.

A description of status/issues in mapping that conveys additional information not represented in the structured data.

A set of additional dependencies for this mapping to hold. This mapping is only applicable if the specified element can be resolved, and it has the specified value.

A reference to an element that holds a coded value that corresponds to a code system property. The idea is that the information model carries an element somewhere that is labeled to correspond with a code system property.

An absolute URI that identifies the code system of the dependency code (if the source/dependency is a value set that crosses code systems).

Identity (code or path) or the element/item/ValueSet/text that the map depends on / refers to.

The display for the code. The display is only provided to help editors when editing the concept map.

The display is ignored when processing the map.

A set of additional outcomes from this mapping to other elements. To properly execute this mapping, the specified element must be mapped to some data element or source that is in context. The mapping may still be useful without a place for the additional data elements, but the relationship (e.g., equivalent) cannot be relied on.

What to do when there is no mapping to a target concept from the source concept. This provides the "default" to be applied when there is no target concept mapping specified. The 'unmapped' element is ignored if a code is specified to have relationship = not-related-to.

This only applies if the source code has a system value that matches the system defined for the group.

Defines which action to take if there is no match for the source concept in the target system designated for the group. One of 3 actions are possible: use the unmapped code (this is useful when doing a mapping between versions, and only a few codes have changed), use a fixed code (a default code), or alternatively, a reference to a different concept map can be provided (by canonical URL).

The fixed code to use when the mode = 'fixed' - all unmapped codes are mapped to a single fixed code.

The display for the code. The display is only provided to help editors when editing the concept map.

The display is ignored when processing the map.

The canonical reference to an additional ConceptMap resource instance to use for mapping if this ConceptMap resource contains no matching mapping for the source concept.