Stream: committers
Topic: Draft resource message - remove for FMM 1s
Rik Smithies (Aug 11 2019 at 10:46):
The medication definition resources, and some others, have a large pink warning attached to them "This resource is still undergoing development ... not suitable for production implementation".
This is in addition to them being FMM 0, so It seems these are really FMM level -1 :-)
But now that a couple of these have made it to FMM 1, I propose that I remove their draft status. They are just as suitable/unsuitable for implementation as other level 1s I would say.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 11 2019 at 16:22):
Is there a clear agreement on these resources, especially around their use in anywhere but the regulatory submission?
These resources seemed consensual for a narrow scope of use cases. I find it very comforting to have the notion of "draft" and the pink warning for now.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 11 2019 at 16:25):
(sorry Rik, but I think discussion is needed between BRR, Pharmacy and OO)
Also I think this is one of the cases where committees will seek local optimisation, and then we are going to spend a lot of effort breaking down the carefully built boundaries, when we have to make prescriptions and medication lists out of these things
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 11 2019 at 16:35):
Besides a "big picture behind this" which I am lacking, I do not understand how we can make it work in some cases.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 11 2019 at 16:39):
For example, when we need to define a product with a combination of attributes from different IDMP concept levels (e.g. package size and substance), how does this work? We let people define extensions?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 11 2019 at 16:42):
I think these resources force boundaries that will not get the best response in the national scenes, and implementers will deviate. Which will not be good for pharmacovigilance (and there goes the goal of IDMP).
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 11 2019 at 16:44):
In openMedicine I was very much in favour of using IDMP as a reference model. IMP the only way is to make sure IDMP supports the variety of concepts out there, instead of enforcing a stricter model.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 11 2019 at 16:48):
Sorry if this seems too critical - the concept mapping is actually very good work, and IDMP is a good starting point as a conceptual model.
I just think - perhaps contaminated by previous discussions - that we lack a common (cross-committee) medicinal product model, and we need to be able to create as many profiles of that common model as needed.
Or perhaps I just missed the discussions.
Rik Smithies (Aug 11 2019 at 17:44):
Hi Jose. I think this is a little bit off topic for my question :-) But to get into that, we have discussed this, at length, in all those workgroups, and on here. We have agreed, and voted, on the set of resources, and had it agreed (some of them at least) by FMG. And these are FMM level 1, so they are very much draft. Feel free to keep raising your concerns - you might want to be a bit more specific - and we can keep discussing them and getting to the answers. But I don't think this is the thread :-)
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 11 2019 at 17:49):
Ok thanks Rik. I am happy there is a consensus even if I do not see how this can work. But to your topic (yes, sorry i diverged). I, for one, think that in this case the pink ribbon is a good thing. Not so much as "this is not ready" but "we actively seek feedback". I think we need real implementations, and beyond regulatory space.
Rik Smithies (Aug 11 2019 at 19:42):
If we mark things as not for implementation then they won't get implemented :-)
Jose Costa Teixeira (Aug 11 2019 at 20:04):
:) sure.
"not suitable for production implementation" = "go nuts, just avoid going to Prod with this before you and others give us feedback"
Grahame Grieve (Aug 11 2019 at 21:00):
we can remove that it. It was added by FMG for R4 publication purposes
Rik Smithies (Aug 11 2019 at 23:13):
thanks. The next question is how. I expected it to be the [draft-resources] section of fhir.ini, but editing that has no effect.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 12 2019 at 10:58):
I'll look into it
Rik Smithies (Sep 07 2019 at 10:48):
@Grahame Grieve any idea on this one please? ("This resource is still undergoing development...")
Grahame Grieve (Sep 08 2019 at 11:13):
sure it's in the source of the intro.xml file
Grahame Grieve (Sep 08 2019 at 11:13):
<blockquote class="stu-note"> <a name="dstu"/> <strong>This resource is still undergoing development and review by the appropriate Workgroups. At this time, is considered only as a draft resource not suitable for production implementation</strong> </blockquote>
Rik Smithies (Sep 08 2019 at 11:26):
ok thanks. Last place I thought of looking!
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
