Add new element resourceProfile

[johngrimes]

This element communicates that the view definition was intended to be executed against the supplied set of profiles.

Resolves #265.

[niquola]

Why not just VD.profile?

[johngrimes]

Why not just VD.profile?

I think this is a good suggestion (it's shorter!), and looking through the FHIR spec I can see a number of other references to StructureDefinition canonicals that are called profile.

If @rbrush agrees, I will update this and save us some bytes!

[grahamegrieve]

The question is what is the profile about. Just 'profile' is slightly more ambiguous than 'resourceProfile' but only very slightly. 'requiredProfile' would be more explicit but I'm not a fan of it being longer. 'profile' is probably OK as long as the shortDoco is crisp and explains exactly what it does

[johngrimes]

This is what I came up with for the short and long doco:

FHIR profiles that this view definition was intended to be executed against

Indicates that this view definition was intended to be executed against any of the specified FHIR profiles.

[grahamegrieve]

What that doesn't say is that it's the resources that are being 'viewed' that the profile applies to - and it's important to be explicit, I think, since multiple different things can be profiled

[johngrimes]

Agreed, here is an update:

FHIR profiles that this view definition was intended to be executed against

Indicates that this definition was designed to create a view over a set of resources conforming to the specified FHIR profiles. Each of these profiles SHALL be based upon the resource type specified in resource.