Stream: implementers
Topic: FHIR-I block vote
Grahame Grieve (Jul 01 2018 at 23:20):
I've just initiated a block vote for next week's FHIR-I call. See http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Infrastructure_Minutes_CC_20180709 for details.
@Alexander Zautke @Andy Gregorowicz @Anthony(Tony) Julian @Brett Marquard @Brian Postlethwaite @Bryn Rhodes @Chris Grenz @Christiaan Knaap @Chuck Feltner @Elliot Silver @Eric Haas @Ewout Kramer @Finnie Flores @François Macary @Hans Buitendijk @Harold Solbrig @Ivan Dubrov @Jenni Syed @Jens Villadsen @Jie Fan @Joel Francis @John Moehrke @Jose Costa Teixeira @Josh Mandel @Lee Surprenant @Lisa Nelson @Lloyd McKenzie @Luis Maas @Marten Smits @Michael Calderero @Michael Lawley @Muhammad Abubakar @Pascal Pfiffner @Richard Townley-O'Neill @Robert McClure @Sean McIlvenna @Shovan @Simone Heckmann @Stefan Dimitrov @Stefan Lang @Stephen Royce @Travis Stenerson @Vadim Peretokin @Wes Rishel all have items in this block vote
Chris Grenz (Jul 01 2018 at 23:26):
@Grahame Grieve Remind me how a block vote works for an unresolved item?
Chris Grenz (Jul 01 2018 at 23:26):
E.g. GF#16312
Grahame Grieve (Jul 01 2018 at 23:32):
Proposed resolution is 'persausive' with a resolution of "add" - so this means , add as proposed
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 01 2018 at 23:40):
Next week's = the 8th? (Too short notice to vote on the 1st...)
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 01 2018 at 23:41):
(Removed)
Grahame Grieve (Jul 01 2018 at 23:43):
9th...\
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 01 2018 at 23:48):
Math is hard... Yes, 9th.
Sean McIlvenna (Jul 02 2018 at 05:13):
I'll be attending the call... but I am fine with the resolution to my comments
Simone Heckmann (Jul 02 2018 at 06:04):
I'm fine with the resolution to my tracker item
Stefan Lang (Jul 02 2018 at 08:09):
I'm fine, too
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jul 02 2018 at 08:40):
Agree with the resolution for item #14015
Ewout Kramer (Jul 02 2018 at 10:06):
Grahame, there are some items with resolution "None", I think these need to be updated?
Ewout Kramer (Jul 02 2018 at 10:07):
E.g. GF#16370
Grahame Grieve (Jul 02 2018 at 10:12):
filled them all out except for GF#12572, which I removed from the block vote
Ewout Kramer (Jul 02 2018 at 11:19):
filled them all out except for GF#12572, which I removed from the block vote
Ok, perfect. I have read through most of the resolutions, and agree with them.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 02 2018 at 15:26):
what is this in regard to?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 02 2018 at 16:11):
Wrong thread. I moved it.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 09 2018 at 07:29):
reminder- this is on the agenda for tomorrow's call
Elliot Silver (Jul 27 2018 at 21:25):
Sorry I'm late on this -- I'm not sure what the resolution of GF#16950 means. Is the intent to add a note? Do we intend to make the regex consistent too?
For GF#16946, I present a use case in the issue, yet the resolution is "we know of no use case".
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 27 2018 at 21:28):
That was a "maybe" use-case and didn't explain what the rationale would be for conveying that data in a healthcare system or what specific attributes would be populated. (If you do an MRI on a mummy, the subject is not going to be registered as a Patient with a birthDate...)
Elliot Silver (Jul 27 2018 at 21:52):
Why not register it as a Patient? Seems like a good way to keep all the observations about the mummy together. Actually, even if the DOB isn't in the Patient, then date of birth or death could easily be Observations.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2018 at 21:54):
I have a hard time thinking that this is real requirement
Elliot Silver (Jul 27 2018 at 22:00):
I admit I don't know how this is handled currently. It seemed like an arbitrary restriction. I suppose if there is a need, one could define an extension ("FarDate" with an integer year?).
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 27 2018 at 22:14):
Birth date and death date would absolutely be observations - they'd be very much interpretations and different individuals/systems could come up with very different answers. In any event, I think it's safe to say that this is well outside the 80%.
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Jul 29 2018 at 23:52):
On GF#16946, dates before the birthdate of the oldest living human will be used in family history. But that is unlikely to involve dates before 1700.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
