I’m not sure this is 100% finalized (so maybe it’s convenient that @kosmik will be off for a week or two).
There is a key difference between MetadataSource/MetadataTerm in this module vs. ConceptSource/ConceptReferenceTerm in core. For concepts in core the term and the mapping are separate things (term = source + code; mapping = concept + term), whereas in this module, the term and the mapping are combined together (term = source + code + ref-to-metadata).
The implication of this is that a MetadataTerm can only point to a single metadata (versus multiple concepts can be mapped to the same reference term). I’m fine with this model, and it generally follows from Mike’s use case, that a module creates a term to represent something it needs to be able to look up (e.g. “which encounter type should represent ‘admission’”).
But I understood Burke (and Wyclif) to be uncomfortable with using this module to do this kind of configuration, because it’s supposed to do mapping. Was I understanding that right? Or are we all on the same page about using this for the “single metadata” use case, and the disagreement is just about sets (e.g. “which encounter types (plural) should close a visit”?