Stream: committers
Topic: Close out for R4
Grahame Grieve (Nov 07 2018 at 22:22):
So I see 282 tasks presently marked as Change Required for the core spec, and I see we have ~3 days left... not looking good.
- 7 are labelled non-compatible, so we should mark these for R5, yes? @Bryn Rhodes GF#17355 ? @Eric Haas GF#14450, GF#10300, GF#10299, GF#10297, GF#10296
Grahame Grieve (Nov 07 2018 at 22:26):
- same for the 19 tasks labelled Substantive.
@Paul Knapp GF#18017, GF#18009 , GF#17916- look redundant?
@Brad Genereaux GF#17183 - where is this?
@Bryn Rhodes GF#11169, GF#14774, GF#15794
@Chris Courville GF#13006
@Melva Peters GF#15136
@Eric Haas GF#16100
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 07 2018 at 22:34):
Priority should be for those that are resolving ballot negatives
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 07 2018 at 22:35):
Are any of the substantives in that boat?
Grahame Grieve (Nov 07 2018 at 22:38):
leaving 256 tasks to be applied...
- 7 for vocab
- 99 for FHIR-I
- 4 for FMG
- 45+22 FHIR Tooling
- 2 for MnM
- 1 for InM
- 14 for PA
- 4 for OO
- 1 for PC
- 2 for PH
- 26 for FM
Grahame Grieve (Nov 07 2018 at 22:39):
substantives for Neg-Mj - the 3 FM ones for @Paul Knapp , and the GF#16100 for @Eric Haas
Grahame Grieve (Nov 07 2018 at 22:40):
and also #14450 for Eric as well from the non-compatible ones
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 08 2018 at 00:22):
PA are aware and onto the 14 allocated to us
Melva Peters (Nov 08 2018 at 00:24):
@Grahame Grieve Pharmacy is not ready to make the changes for GF 15136 - further discussion is needed. The status has been changed to deferred as discussed in Pharmacy WG November 5, 2018.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 08 2018 at 01:01):
thanks Melva; I updated the target release to R5
Eric Haas (Nov 08 2018 at 04:19):
GF#16100 has been applied but not as dispositioned but how the commenter has requested it be redispositioned. I can try to get oo to look at it tomorrow and reopen and revote. Its FMM is draft if that makes a difference.
Eric Haas (Nov 08 2018 at 04:27):
GF#14450 has been updated to applied. I will create a new trackers for the remaining workflow tasks for R5
Eric Haas (Nov 08 2018 at 04:54):
same for GF#10300, GF#10299, GF#10297, GF#10296 - all marked as applied and remaining workflow tasks consolidated into a new tracker GF#19631
Grahame Grieve (Nov 08 2018 at 06:02):
ok thanks
Andy Stechishin (Nov 08 2018 at 06:15):
@Grahame Grieve my apologies, GF#18017, GF#17916 and GF#18009 were all previously applied but I had missed updating GForge
Grahame Grieve (Nov 08 2018 at 06:16):
great
Andy Stechishin (Nov 08 2018 at 06:18):
@Paul Knapp and I are on target to finish the remaining non-substantive 26 FM items over the weekend (hopefully tomorrow)
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Nov 08 2018 at 14:54):
For PC, I don't plan to apply GF#7057 in R4. It is related to RIM and C-CDA mappings.
Bryn Rhodes (Nov 08 2018 at 22:01):
@Grahame Grieve , GF#17355, GF#11169, GF#14774, yes should all be pushed to R5. GF#15794 is BR&R though, I don't have any input on that one.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 08 2018 at 22:02):
@Hugh Glover - where are we with GF#15794?
Eric Haas (Nov 08 2018 at 22:57):
I pushed GF#16100 to R5 did not get time on OO call
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Nov 08 2018 at 23:32):
@Grahame Grieve PC approved GF#19634 tonight, which is changing the definitions of the AllergyIntolerance.clinicalStatus codes (from "record status" to more of a clinical status). Technically, these definition changes are considered substantive since we are changing the meaning of the codes, so I wanted to see if you approve letting them in since it shouldn't trigger much re-work on your end given it is definition changes only. Thoughts?
Grahame Grieve (Nov 08 2018 at 23:37):
yes I approve those changes
Michelle (Moseman) Miller (Nov 09 2018 at 13:46):
Just an FYI that I've applied both GF#19634 (AllergyIntolerance.clinicalStatus substantive code definition changes) and GF#19633 (adding a comment about why Condition/AllergyIntolerance statuses are CodeableConcept)
John Moehrke (Nov 09 2018 at 17:54):
- same for the 19 tasks labelled Substantive.
@Paul Knapp GF#18017, GF#18009 , GF#17916- look redundant?
@Brad Genereaux GF#17183 - where is this?
@Bryn Rhodes GF#11169, GF#14774, GF#15794
@Chris Courville GF#13006
@Melva Peters GF#15136
@Eric Haas GF#16100
Grahame, GF#17183 is targeted toward R5. It will require a Resource Proposal yet to be written, and details. @Brad Genereaux @Elliot Silver
Paul Knapp (Nov 10 2018 at 13:35):
@Lloyd McKenzie Where do we put images which are to be included in resource pages? I have tried fhir/images and fhir/images/source without success. If I place the image in publish then it will show but I can't see where to place the image so that it ends up in publish.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 10 2018 at 13:43):
You put the image in images, the source file (e.g. VSD) in images/source and you update the publish.ini file to include the file in images. If this is for the legal state machine diagram we were emailing about, I've already got the pull request in place. It's building now.
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 12 2018 at 04:02):
When are the resources going to be removed that are planned to be removed from the build? (thinking EBM stuff) - considering the code generation bits
Grahame Grieve (Nov 12 2018 at 05:15):
not sure - later in the process
Eric Haas (Nov 12 2018 at 17:46):
plan to yank ItemInstance as well. Plan is for OO to vote on that when they get the chance.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 12 2018 at 17:53):
I just launched a PR - it will be ready to merge after I board my flight - can someone merge it when it's ready please
Grahame Grieve (Nov 12 2018 at 17:53):
"yank iteminstance"?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 12 2018 at 18:50):
Done
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 12 2018 at 18:51):
Though the label was "fix r3/r4 conversions tests"
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 14 2018 at 18:50):
Someone just pointed out that DetectedIssue only points to Practitioner|Organization but doesn't allow PractitionerRole - which is how you can refer to both at the same time, which is the most typical situation. We fixed most resources that pointed to Practitioner to support PractitionerRole as well, but looks like this one was missed. Are we too late to fix this for R4 @Grahame Grieve ?. @Bryn Rhodes, would CDS have any objection to fixing if we have time to sneak this in?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 14 2018 at 19:31):
On further investigation, this is a problem all over the place: Account.subject, AdverseEvent.subject, AdverseEvent.recorder, AdverseEvent.contributor, AllergyIntolerance.recorder, AllergyIntolerance.asserter, AppointmentResponse.actor, Basic.author, BiologicallyDerivedProduct.collection.collector, CatalogEntry.referencedItem, ChargeItem.enterer, ClinicalImpression.assessor, Condition.recorder, Contract.author, Contract.contentDefinition.publisher, Contract.term.offer.party.reference, Contract.term.asset.valuedItem.responsible, Contract.term.asset.valuedItem.recipient, Contract.term.action.subject.reference, Contract.term.action.requester, Contract.signer.party, DetectedIssue.author, DetectedIssue.mitigation.author, DeviceUseStatement.source, DocumentManifest.subject, DocumentReference.subject, DocumentReference.authenticator, EpisodeOfCare.careManager, Flag.subject, Flag.author, Goal.expressedBy, ImagingStudy.referrer, ImagingStudy.interpreter, Invoice.participant.actor, Linkage.author, Media.subject, MedicationDispense.receiver, MedicationDispense.substitution.responsibleParty, MedicationRequest.reported[x], MedicationRequest.recorder, MedicationStatement.informationSource, MessageHeader.destination.receiver, MessageHeader.sender, MessageHeader.enterer, MessageHeader.author, MessageHeader.responsible, Person.link.target, PractitionerRole.practitioner, QuestionnaireResponse.source, RequestGroup.author, RequestGroup.action.participant, ResearchStudy.principalInvestigator, RiskAssessment.performer, Specimen.collection.collector, SupplyDelivery.receiver, Task.restriction.recipient, VerificationResult.primarySource.who, VerificationResult.attestation.who, VerificationResult.attestation.onBehalfOf
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 14 2018 at 19:33):
Those are all places that allow Practitioner but not PractitionerRole - meaning they can't identify who the practitioner was acting on behalf of, nor what role the practitioner had when they acted. There might be a couple of elements where that makes sense, but very few.
John Moehrke (Nov 14 2018 at 20:33):
Is this an R5 or are you expecting quick major changes?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 14 2018 at 20:34):
Hoping to make quick changes - but that depends on Grahame's ruling. An alternative would be to define an extension for use in all of these, though that's sort of ugly.
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 14 2018 at 20:46):
I know which I don't want it on. And there are a few there
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 14 2018 at 20:47):
Adverseevent.Subject can be a practitioner?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 14 2018 at 20:52):
Bad things absolutely happen to Practitioners - but agree role and organization aren't relevant there.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 14 2018 at 20:52):
E.g. a needle stick would be captured as an AdverseEvent
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 14 2018 at 20:55):
I'd also exclude it from Flag.subject, Media.subject. Not sure about any others.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 15 2018 at 02:30):
I could see myself approving something like this on technical grounds as as discovered issue in QA, but FMG needs to be very clear about what an acceptable process is for this sort of thing at this time.
Hugh Glover (Nov 15 2018 at 12:11):
(deleted)
Hugh Glover (Nov 15 2018 at 12:12):
I understood GF15794 had been done, but my local build doesn't have it. I'll fix, and also check others that have supposedly been done.
John Moehrke (Nov 15 2018 at 16:25):
I don't think this update is necessary for DocumentReference, DocumentManifest, ImagingStudy. I think these have already evaluated this change, given how PractitionerRole is used in other elements within these resources.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 15 2018 at 20:48):
@John Moehrke DocumentReference.authenticator definitely needs it - it presumeably matters "on what organization's behalf" did a given practitioner authenticate a document and what hat were they wearing at the time. In terms of subject, that's harder to say. I'm willing to accept the idea of leaving it off DocumentManifest and DocumentReference.subject. For ImagingStudy.referrer and ImagingStudy.interpreter, it would almost certainly be required. When the referal was made, was it made from clinic 1 or hospital 1? Was the practitioner referring as a cardiologist or as a GP? That sort of thing matters. Interpreter it would matter on behalf of what organization the interpretation was made. That will impact billing, may impact where records are kept, etc.
John Moehrke (Nov 16 2018 at 00:05):
Good pointed arguments. I had focused on .subject. Then what governance will be uses to make these changes after the 11th hour?
Bryn Rhodes (Nov 16 2018 at 05:34):
If there's agreement, CDS would be happy with that change. I think the only reason it's that way now is the PractitionerRole resource wasn't around when detected issue was built.
Grahame Grieve (Nov 16 2018 at 08:19):
@John Moehrke FMG needs to be clear about the process
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2018 at 08:31):
Part of the process was the #committers/announce notification of intention so that work groups have an opportunity to review and evaluate
John Moehrke (Nov 16 2018 at 13:52):
it is not clear that the announcement was sufficient authorization for the workgroups to consider a Change Request approval. Many workgroups have turned their focus to their non-FHIR items, now that the deadline for changes is long past. (not all workgroups are 100% dedicated to FHIR)
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2018 at 15:32):
Work groups should still be focused on FHIR - their work on R4 isn't done until we hit Dec. 2. If you have thoughts on how else to engage, feel free to propose - or initiate yourself :)
Grahame Grieve (Nov 16 2018 at 17:02):
send an email on this one
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 16 2018 at 21:21):
Done
Kevin Power (Nov 16 2018 at 22:29):
Hi all / @Grahame Grieve - When making a change for MolecularSequence (recently renamed from Sequence) before the substantive cutoff, I made changes to search parameters that were incorrectly applied and changed behavior. While evaluating the fix to my mistake, I found that I needed to make some additional changes to search params to make them consistent. I did create a pull request with the changes so I could get some review from others in Clinical Genomics (@Patrick Werner @James Jones @ Bob Milius ), but wanted to ask here if I could get permissions to merge these changes?
See the pull request 286
Brian Postlethwaite (Dec 05 2018 at 00:35):
In updating the dotnet FHIR client to the current R4 version, have noted the following substantive changes over the last few weeks, just to ensure that we've only got approved ones in there.
Consent.Status valueset changed
PracRole reference option added to many existing resource references,
ExplanationOfBenefit type property added
Miscelaneous Valueset definition and description text updates - QA updates
MedicationRequest status/intent valueset update
RequestGroup - significant changes - several properties removed (due to change to use of expression datatype), and encounter context change
RiskAssessment - encounter context change
Grahame Grieve (Dec 05 2018 at 01:58):
yes I approved all those
Grahame Grieve (Dec 05 2018 at 01:59):
thx
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
