Concept-equivalence.xml

Definition for Value SetConceptMapEquivalence

Raw XML

<ValueSet xmlns="http://hl7.org/fhir">
  <text>
    <status value="generated"/>
    <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
      <h2>ConceptMapEquivalence</h2>
      <p>The degree of equivalence between concepts</p>
      <p>This value set defines its own terms in the system http://hl7.org/fhir/concept-equivalence</p>
      <table>
        <tr>
          <td>
            <b>Code</b>
          </td>
          <td>
            <b>Display</b>
          </td>
          <td>
            <b>Definition</b>
          </td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>equal
            <a name="equal"> </a>
          </td>
          <td/>
          <td>The definitions of the concepts are exactly the same (i.e. only grammatical differences)
             and structural implications of meaning are identifical or irrelevant (i.e. intensionally
             identical).</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>equivalent
            <a name="equivalent"> </a>
          </td>
          <td/>
          <td>The definitions of the concepts mean the same thing (including when structural implications
             of meaning are considered) (i.e. extensionally identical).</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>wider
            <a name="wider"> </a>
          </td>
          <td/>
          <td>The target mapping is wider in meaning than the source concept.</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>..subsumes
            <a name="subsumes"> </a>
          </td>
          <td/>
          <td>The target mapping subsumes the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the source is-a target).</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>narrower
            <a name="narrower"> </a>
          </td>
          <td/>
          <td>The target mapping is narrower in meaning that the source concept. The sense in which
             the mapping is narrower SHALL be described in the comments in this case, and applications
             should be careful when atempting to use these mappings operationally.</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>..specialises
            <a name="specialises"> </a>
          </td>
          <td/>
          <td>The target mapping specialises the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the target is-a
             source).</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>inexact
            <a name="inexact"> </a>
          </td>
          <td/>
          <td>The target mapping overlaps with the source concept, but both source and target cover
             additional meaning. The sense in which the mapping is narrower SHALL be described in the
             comments in this case, and applications should be careful when atempting to use these
             mappings operationally.</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>unmatched
            <a name="unmatched"> </a>
          </td>
          <td/>
          <td>There is no match for this concept in the destination concept system.</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
          <td>..disjoint
            <a name="disjoint"> </a>
          </td>
          <td/>
          <td>This is an explicit assertion that there is no mapping between the source and target concept.</td>
        </tr>
      </table>
    </div>
  </text>
  <identifier value="http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/concept-equivalence"/>
  <name value="ConceptMapEquivalence"/>
  <publisher value="HL7 (FHIR Project)"/>
  <telecom>
    <system value="url"/>
    <value value="http://hl7.org/fhir"/>
  </telecom>
  <telecom>
    <system value="email"/>
    <value value="fhir@lists.hl7.org"/>
  </telecom>
  <description value="The degree of equivalence between concepts"/>
  <status value="draft"/>
  <date value="2014-09-30T18:09:16.978+10:00"/>
  <define>
    <system value="http://hl7.org/fhir/concept-equivalence"/>
    <caseSensitive value="true"/>
    <concept>
      <code value="equal"/>
      <definition value="The definitions of the concepts are exactly the same (i.e. only grammatical differences)
       and structural implications of meaning are identifical or irrelevant (i.e. intensionally
       identical)."/>
    </concept>
    <concept>
      <code value="equivalent"/>
      <definition value="The definitions of the concepts mean the same thing (including when structural implications
       of meaning are considered) (i.e. extensionally identical)."/>
    </concept>
    <concept>
      <code value="wider"/>
      <definition value="The target mapping is wider in meaning than the source concept."/>
      <concept>
        <code value="subsumes"/>
        <definition value="The target mapping subsumes the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the source is-a target)."/>
      </concept>
    </concept>
    <concept>
      <code value="narrower"/>
      <definition value="The target mapping is narrower in meaning that the source concept. The sense in which
       the mapping is narrower SHALL be described in the comments in this case, and applications
       should be careful when atempting to use these mappings operationally."/>
      <concept>
        <code value="specialises"/>
        <definition value="The target mapping specialises the meaning of the source concept (e.g. the target is-a
         source)."/>
      </concept>
    </concept>
    <concept>
      <code value="inexact"/>
      <definition value="The target mapping overlaps with the source concept, but both source and target cover
       additional meaning. The sense in which the mapping is narrower SHALL be described in the
       comments in this case, and applications should be careful when atempting to use these
       mappings operationally."/>
    </concept>
    <concept>
      <code value="unmatched"/>
      <definition value="There is no match for this concept in the destination concept system."/>
      <concept>
        <code value="disjoint"/>
        <definition value="This is an explicit assertion that there is no mapping between the source and target concept."/>
      </concept>
    </concept>
  </define>
</ValueSet>