Stream: committers
Topic: GF#18308
Grahame Grieve (Oct 17 2018 at 00:34):
During the FHIR-I reconciliation call on Monday, we resolved task GF#18308, where we proposed to change the text for Observation.status to
The authoring/source system does not know which of the status values currently applies for this observation. Note: This concept is not to be used for "other" - one of the listed statuses is presumed to apply, but the authoring/source system does not know which.
Grahame Grieve (Oct 17 2018 at 00:35):
this text appears about 10 places through the spec, apparently copy/pasted from the workflow pattern "Request".
Grahame Grieve (Oct 17 2018 at 00:35):
should we change all of them?
Grahame Grieve (Oct 17 2018 at 00:36):
@Lloyd McKenzie @Ron Shapiro @Eric Haas @Rob Hausam @Melva Peters
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 17 2018 at 00:40):
I'm in favor.
Melva Peters (Oct 17 2018 at 15:51):
I'm in favour....I'm in the middle of MedicationRequest changes...do you want me to make this one?
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 17 2018 at 15:54):
I look at it as a technical correction, so go for it.
Melva Peters (Oct 17 2018 at 16:12):
Okay...will make the change shortly
Eric Haas (Oct 17 2018 at 16:35):
I will change for OO.
Eric Haas (Oct 17 2018 at 16:45):
Procedurally - since this is a neg-major ballot for normatative observation. I thought you could not change the Workgroup to FHIR-I?
Grahame Grieve (Oct 17 2018 at 18:53):
I'm not aware of any rule that says that we can't do that from a normative ballot perspective. Certainly it's a potential committee turf war, so we didn't do it particularly enthusiastically
Eric Haas (Oct 17 2018 at 19:01):
I am not concerned about turf wars but the ANSI rules. It was more appropriate as a Workflow tracker than Observation tracker.
Grahame Grieve (Oct 17 2018 at 19:02):
then that would have been FHIR-I - so we turn out to be covered retrospectively ;-)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
