Release 4 FHIR CI-Build

This page is part of the Continuous Integration Build of FHIR Specification (v4.0.1: R4 - Mixed Normative and STU ) in it's permanent home (it will always (will be available incorrect/inconsistent at this URL). The current version which supercedes this version is 5.0.0 . For a full list of available versions, see times).
See the Directory of published versions . Page versions: R5 R4B R4 R3 R2

Provenance-example-sig.xml

Example Provenance/signature (XML)

Maturity Level : N/A
Responsible Owner: Security Work Group Standards Status : Informative Compartments : Device , Group , Patient , Practitioner , RelatedPerson

Raw XML ( canonical form + also see XML Format Specification )

Jump past Narrative

Provenance holding a signature (id = "signature")

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>


  
  
    
    procedure record authored on 27-June 2015 by Harold Hippocrates, MD Content extracted
       from Referral received 26-June
  
  <!--   
    where possible, provenance targets should be version specific,
    so that there is no ambiguity about which version of the 
    record this relates to
    -->
  
        
  
  
  
    
      
      
      
    
  
  
    
      
      
      
    
  

  
  
    
      
        
        
      
    

    <!--   very often, the user won't have a known system - these aren't available 
      for security system log ons. But where you can define it, you should.
      Most of the time the userId is fully qualfied such as an email address      -->
    
      
        
        
      
    
  
  
    
    
      
      
      
    
    
    
      
      
    
    
    
  

<Provenance xmlns="http://hl7.org/fhir">
  <id value="signature"/> 
  <!--  
  <text>
    <status value="extensions"/>
    <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">procedure record authored on 27-June
   2015 by Harold Hippocrates, MD Content extracted from Referral received 26-June</div>
  </text>
  -->
  <!--   
    where possible, provenance targets SHOULD be version specific,
    so that there is no ambiguity about which version of the 
    record this relates to
    -->
  <target>     <reference value="DocumentReference/example/_history/4"/>   </target>   <recorded value="2015-08-27T08:39:24+10:00"/>   <authorization>     <concept>       <coding>         <system value="http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-ActReason"/>         <code value="TREAT"/>         <display value="treatment"/>       </coding>     </concept>   </authorization>   <activity>     <coding>       <system value="http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-DocumentCompletion"/>       <code value="AU"/>       <display value="authenticated"/>     </coding>   </activity>   <!--   signer = Harold Hippocrates   -->  <agent>     <type>       <coding>         <system value="http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/contractsignertypecodes"/>         <code value="VERF"/>       </coding>     </type>     <!--   very often, the user won't have a known system - these aren't available 
      for security system log ons. But where you can define it, you SHOULD.
      Most of the time the userId is fully qualfied such as an email address   
       -->
    <who>       <identifier>         <system value="urn:ietf:rfc:3986"/>         <value value="mailto://hhd@ssa.gov"/>       </identifier>     </who>   </agent>   <signature>     <!--   verification signature   -->    <type>       <system value="urn:iso-astm:E1762-95:2013"/>       <code value="1.2.840.10065.1.12.1.5"/>       <display value="Verification Signature"/>     </type>     <when value="2015-08-27T08:39:24+10:00"/>     <who>       <reference value="Practitioner/xcda-author"/>     </who>     <targetFormat value="application/fhir+xml"/>     <sigFormat value="application/signature+xml"/>     <data value="Li4u"/>   </signature> 


</

Provenance

>



Usage note: every effort has been made to ensure that the examples are correct and useful, but they are not a normative part of the specification.