Stream: fmg
Topic: Agenda item
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 16 2018 at 05:29):
For one of our next calls and/or for the WGM: GF#14445
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 15 2018 at 07:49):
Atting PractitionerRole to most of the places that only have Practitioner
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 15 2018 at 10:38):
Where appropriate, not a blanket rule.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 15 2018 at 15:24):
Another item - approving recirculation ballots for Patient and possibly Infrastructure. (Looks like Patient will be unavoidable and better to get these out of the way sooner rather than later.)
David Hay (Nov 15 2018 at 19:45):
These can wait till next week?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 15 2018 at 20:52):
Yes, we actually want to wait until next week as I'm hoping to get withdrawals on one that will make recirculation unnecessary. If we approve next Wed and the TSC approves the following Monday, the recirculation can open on the 11th, allowing for publication on the 12th provided that recirculation passes. The earliest the TSC could approve publication going forward would be the 11th too.
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 12 2018 at 04:53):
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 10 2019 at 06:09):
Sometime (perhaps not on our next call), I'd like to talk about us adding a check in our publishing process that all "change required" items are either applied or explicity tied to a future release and that all non "considered for future use" ballot items are handled in the current release. There are a bunch of times where changes have been promised but not made, and that's a problem.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 18 2019 at 13:58):
For a future call - moving NamingSystem from FHIR-I to Vocab
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 07 2019 at 17:55):
From the #Zulip post by Lee - what is our policy on the use of chat.fhir.org for non-HL7-sponsored projects, and particularly the use of private streams.
Grahame Grieve (Oct 07 2019 at 23:46):
use for any fhir project is prefectly appropriate. Any use of private streams for FHIR projects is still subject to the code of conduct
Grahame Grieve (Oct 07 2019 at 23:49):
looking at the current list of private streams, we have no current problems with non-fhir use
John Moehrke (Oct 08 2019 at 15:31):
I presume from that statement, that the private streams are not private from administrative oversite? I think this is good, and is also good to express in the code-of-conduct as a "and we reserve the right to watch for abuse".
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 11 2019 at 21:17):
We need to set policy for when should core and IG vocabulary content be defined in UTG vs. being maintained as part of the core spec/within IGs. I believe that the proposed policy is:
- for FMM2 and lower artifacts, maintaining terminology in FHIR is fine unless there's existing external or UTG terminologies that are obviously appropriate
- in order to hit FMM3, you have to have done your best to define external terminologies (including requesting changes/additions as needed) and, if that's not possible, propose adding adding the relevant terms to UTG
- only exceptions are value sets (and sometimes code systems) for 'code' elements that need to be strictly managed by FHIR where sharing isn't appropriate and full control must remain with FHIR and be tied to the release cycle.
- in particular, value sets that draw on SNOMED or similar terminologies where the concepts and relationships are quite dynamic should always be maintained within UTG
Once we affirm the policies, we need to get the tooling to start spitting out warnings and errors letting work groups know when terminologies should be considered 'temporary' (and ideally exposing that as part of the published spec) and when the terminologies must change (if they want to maintain their terminology). We need to get this done sooner than later so that for everything that needs to go into the UTG process we can start it sooner rather than later so that the terminology review process doesn't get totally swamped and/or turn out to be a limiting factor in getting content out for R5.
Note that this will likely mean that the value set URLs for a bunch of stuff will change.
Grahame Grieve (Oct 15 2019 at 23:55):
I would also like to discuss the FHIR Community Process please
Grahame Grieve (Oct 16 2019 at 00:23):
specifically, this section: https://wiki.hl7.org/FHIR_Community_Process#FHIR_Publication_Tooling_Council
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 28 2020 at 21:08):
Mary Ann asked if there's still value in differentiating "Observer" from "Participant" registrations. She has rightly pointed out that we don't check - which means that some folks who probably only qualify for Observer rates are cheating and paying the Participant rates - which isn't really fair to those who follow the rules. Also, I'm not sure we're at the point where we're terribly concerned about observers tagging along and wasting time/space. For discussion on tomorrow's call or on Monday.
David Hay (Jan 28 2020 at 22:35):
I tend to agree - I'm not sure that the distinction really applies any more... Talk more tomorrow!
Rob Hausam (Jan 28 2020 at 22:50):
I agree that the distinction doesn't seem to be useful now (even if it could have been at first).
John Moehrke (Jan 29 2020 at 14:35):
I agree that distinction has served the original purpose and not needed now
David Hay (Jan 29 2020 at 17:56):
sounds like it will be a quick agenda item!
Lynn Laakso (Jan 29 2020 at 21:02):
call is on!
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 18 2020 at 21:57):
Two more items for tomorrow's call:
- shutting down chat.hl7.org and moving all hl7 discussion into chat.fhir.org (which we'd dual-host at both URLs)
- Getting our remaining wiki content migrated so that HL7 can shut down the wiki
John Moehrke (Feb 19 2020 at 18:19):
I will not be able to make it due to IHE face-to-face meeting
David Hay (Feb 19 2020 at 18:42):
and I'm an apology as well...
Hans Buitendijk (Feb 19 2020 at 21:01):
Stuck in another meeting.
Lloyd McKenzie (Apr 21 2020 at 15:13):
How we want to engage work groups given that we won't have a WGM. What questions need to be asked, what info needs to be communicated?
Lloyd McKenzie (May 13 2020 at 16:40):
When is it appropriate to create a Jira entry for an IG? Should we wait until there's an approved IG proposal?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 02 2020 at 22:20):
Clinical Genomics is wondering if they can remove some profiles from the core spec as part of 4.1 or whether they're limited to only clearly marking the content as deprecated and adding a reference to their IG.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 02 2020 at 22:21):
Also, we should have a policy on whether adding or fixing examples is ok.
Josh Mandel (Jul 09 2020 at 14:16):
Can we get agreement to remove content from the old wiki, or hide it inside a "spoiler" box so you have to click to see it? Right now, googling FHIR stuff often points to the old wiki, and while there are links to confluence, they're easy to miss, given the amount of pure content in the old pages. See discussion here.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 09 2020 at 14:23):
The wiki itself is supposed to be shut down/hidden soon-ish. @Joshua Procious ?
Joshua Procious (Jul 09 2020 at 14:27):
The last I was aware from EST/PEST is that it will be maintained for archival purposes with no set time of closure. I can bring up on next call.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 09 2020 at 14:28):
Can we limit public read?
Josh Mandel (Jul 09 2020 at 14:29):
My take is that the content should be maintained for archival purposes; but we need to make sure it's hard to confuse the archived content for current stuff.
Lynn Laakso (Jul 09 2020 at 14:39):
@Joshua Procious can we restrict spiders or search indices from scanning the wiki?
Joshua Procious (Jul 09 2020 at 14:40):
We can limit public read and still maintain yes. Depending on the spider, yes :) Searching within the wiki (public read) also yes.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 09 2020 at 20:45):
ideally, we can hide the page content and just leave the redirect but let people still find the old content in the history
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 17 2020 at 15:52):
How we want to handle 'joint sessions' for the Sept. WGM
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 22 2020 at 21:41):
Considerations for next time we discuss R4B:
- can we update maturity levels of resources (tricky discussion about updating stuff that was FMM0, given they were balloted as draft)
- can we add/remove/correct examples?
- for resources that were FMM 0 in R4, does that really mean that they can't go normative until R7 - which could be another 8 years from now if we are looking at 3 years between releases.
Brian Postlethwaite (Sep 22 2020 at 23:52):
(and any technical corrections too - like the Consent identifier system example value in the structure definition that causes errors in the QA report of any IG using it)
Brian Postlethwaite (Sep 24 2020 at 10:04):
Is it just me or does the whova agenda and the FMG agenda session times not match?
https://confluence.hl7.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=91989755
Both are clashing with PA sessions, and I trying to work out which I need to organize others for.
Confluence FMG Agenda: 4:00 PM U.S. Eastern
Whova: 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM
@Anne Wizauer
Anne Wizauer (Sep 24 2020 at 12:26):
Well...it looks like "somebody" forgot to change the time on the agenda template.
Anne Wizauer (Sep 24 2020 at 12:27):
It is indeed 2pm Eastern. So hard to find good help these days.
Hans Buitendijk (Sep 24 2020 at 17:47):
I'll be checking in with PCG/US Core at the start of their meeting (same time as FMG) when they will bring up Must Support draft statement and then jump over to FMG, or will ping here if they pick that up as the first topic.
Hans Buitendijk (Sep 24 2020 at 18:00):
CPG/US Core is aiming to cover Must Support statement first, and then I'll jump back to FMG.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 24 2020 at 21:11):
There are currently C-CDA mappings in multiple places (C-CDA on FHIR, the SOA IG, and in some of the resources themselves). We also have v2 mappings in the resources themselves and in v2 on FHIR and maybe other places? It would be good if we could direct all mapping documentation to a single 'authoritative' place rather than have multiple representations in different places with varying levels of precision as well as varying degrees of consistency. It may be that we will want to create awareness of those mappings in multiple places, but if we're actually going to display the mappings in multiple places, it would be best if that were driven automatically from a single source of truth. As well, we might want to establish some governance expectations around published mappings, particularly in terms of review/endorsement by the work group responsible for the artifact being mapped to, as well as the work group/organization responsible for the artifact being mapped to (at least if they're not the same).
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 24 2020 at 21:11):
Can we add this to a future call?
Grahame Grieve (Sep 24 2020 at 21:16):
Sure. It's time to remove the mappings to CDA and v2 built into the specification and focus on getting the CDA and v2 IGs to do this
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 24 2020 at 21:19):
I actually think having the mappings in the resources is nice - being able to quickly scan when looking at the resource and see that X correponds to PID.3 is handy. So if we can figure out a way to auto-populate those, that'd be really nice. But if we can't, then including a link to those IGs (and ideally the relevant page(s) of those IGs) would be better. Also, we should have governance around not spawning projects that might produce conflicting mappings (as happened w/ SOA) and setting review expectations - or perhaps even maturity levels for mappings tied to the degree of review they've received.
Lynn Laakso (Sep 25 2020 at 12:53):
is this something we need to escalate to SGB or just bring up with V2 Management Group? @Anne Wizauer
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 25 2020 at 12:56):
Valid point. I'd like FMG to talk about it first - in particular so we can examine tooling options for exposing mappings in the FHIR spec. However, it probably does require coordination across the whole organization and thus action by SGB and/or TSC.
Hans Buitendijk (Sep 25 2020 at 17:42):
@While for some FHIR data it would be possible to point to one v2 element, as we have found with v2-to-FHIR, the relationship is not always 1:1, but 1:n based on context where that may be an "and" or "or". So won't be easy. At best the current map tables in the FHIR tabs is examplar and not bi-directional. Considering that, I'd agree with Grahame to point to it. For v2+ or C-CDA to FHIR, the source standard would be the best place to directly connect to the mappings (besides being accessible in their own right). For FHIR to v2+ or C-CDA then FHIR would be the best, but requires a bit of work to get that in place. For v2/FHIR that is not on the front burner.
Maintaining the tables as examplars in FHIR is not helpful either (double work), but perhaps a more general map (e.g., what segment or segments would relate to it either way) and then reference that/those maps to start to get a sense.
For v2 the first publication would be sometime 2021 H1, but not cover everthing.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 25 2020 at 17:50):
We absolutely don't want to maintain information in multiple places, but if we can generate a summary view into the core spec from the mapping information authoritatively maintained elsewhere, that would be useful. That certainly doesn't mean that there's a 1..1 mapping.
Hans Buitendijk (Sep 25 2020 at 17:54):
Generating a summary map should be possible. For v2 it's all in Conceptmaps
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 02 2020 at 21:20):
Can we set a deadline for an R5 snapshot for Jan. connectathon?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 20 2020 at 21:30):
TSC rep from FMG
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 16 2020 at 17:22):
What are the rules for limiting feedback in an STU to only specific sections of the IG? We're doing this in R4B. I expect Da Vinci is going to want to do the same for some of their IGs in the coming year. I'm pretty comfortable with R4B because there's an expectation of a full ballot following relatively soon there-on. I'm less comfortable with Da Vinci, as the objective is to minimize the feedback and deviations to meet regulatory timelines - even though some people will be looking at the IG for the first time. I think it would be good to have some guidelines for when limiting feedback is appropriate and when it's not.
Lynn Laakso (Dec 16 2020 at 17:26):
BTW what is the target date for R4B? I still have it on the ballot desktop for opening Friday but the "final content deadline" is not really the same applicability for the core spec
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 16 2020 at 17:31):
"As soon as Grahame can get it done"? We'd identified Jan. 14 as the last possible date for opening. I doubt we'll come in too much before that, but obviously it's good to open as soon as we can.
Lynn Laakso (Dec 16 2020 at 17:32):
ok I don't think the database will accept that answer and I have to update the ballot announcement to set a date to which the opening will be postponed; what date should I use?
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 16 2020 at 17:37):
Best to ask @Grahame Grieve when he wakes up.
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 16 2020 at 21:01):
Call on now
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 06 2021 at 21:03):
Call on now...
Josh Mandel (Jan 06 2021 at 22:02):
I'm going to have to drop off the call now -- thanks all!
Josh Mandel (Jan 12 2021 at 19:28):
Future call topic: connectathon checklist! This time around we didn't manage to get an R5 preview snapshot released in time for the connectathon (see discussion). Should we have a checklist for the lead-up to connectathons?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 12 2021 at 20:10):
Connectathon/WGM, perhaps?
John Moehrke (Jan 13 2021 at 20:29):
did we decide we are meeting today?
Lynn Laakso (Jan 13 2021 at 20:36):
agenda is posted but I hoped to attend the C-thon kickoff after
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 13 2021 at 21:00):
Kickoff doesn't start until a half-hour after we're supposed to be done
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 13 2021 at 21:00):
However, FMG Zoom link says that the host has another meeting in progress?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 13 2021 at 21:00):
Are we going to run into a zoom account issue?
Anne Wizauer (Jan 13 2021 at 21:01):
Sorry - call went over
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 13 2021 at 21:02):
Call is on now...
Josh Mandel (Jan 13 2021 at 22:35):
"Use of GIT issues to manage the fine-grained details of larger changes, particularly when working on those changes as part of a branch, is permitted. However, when past the initial development phase for a specification (i.e., after first ballot opening for a specification), the expectation is that commits to the master/main branch for a specification should only occur if associated with a JIRA tracker item. Note that JIRA tracker items are not necessary for minor technical corrections to specifications that remain in the STU state. Development of FHIR content that is not considered "external" from a PSS perspective shall take place in the HL7 GIT environment unless there has been an exception granted by the TSC."
I'm good with this, thanks! This allows a workflow where medium-term new development happens on branches, and gets merged into main through a Jira tracker item. I want to confirm that the Jira tracker doesn't need to be approved before changes land in main, but just needs to exist.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 13 2021 at 23:21):
Correct. No need for approval. You can submit a pre-applied Jira ticket (so long as you mark it as pre-applied).
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 13 2021 at 23:21):
It's up to work groups what their policies on when pre-applied is desired/appropriate.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 15 2021 at 21:21):
Are we allowed to have streams specific to commercial solutions? What rules in general do we have around commercial solutions and Zulip?
John Moehrke (Jan 15 2021 at 21:31):
there are some already... touchstone, trifolia, hapi... I am not feeling bad about these, but it does open up the question about when is too far.
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 22 2021 at 16:00):
NIB for R5 "for comment" ballot
Melva Peters (Feb 22 2021 at 22:23):
Process for Jira specification naming and approval of names
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 23 2021 at 22:00):
Joint meeting approach for May
Lloyd McKenzie (May 28 2021 at 21:39):
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 02 2021 at 18:52):
What do we do if someone pays to come to connectathon and there aren't any partners for them to play with?
John Moehrke (Jun 02 2021 at 18:53):
is it our responsibility to gather members for every track? I understood it is up to a track to gather members.
Lynn Laakso (Jun 02 2021 at 20:02):
where are our peeps?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 27 2021 at 15:09):
CG had sent an email to FMG contact and were asking for an update
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 12 2021 at 18:39):
Not sure if there'll be time at WGM, but at some point we need to talk about whether we have expectations that IG authors should check that their instances are being validated against the profiles they had expected them to.
Josh Mandel (Sep 15 2021 at 22:01):
"Connectathon builds" for R4B / R5 -- I don't think we got these this time around. Do we have a process to ensure we get these ready in lead-up to connectathons?
Rob Hausam (Sep 15 2021 at 22:07):
Yes, good question.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 16 2021 at 21:05):
well, I do it. I just wasn't around to do it this time, and there was no way to get someone else to do it. Doing it is a nightmare, and regularising that is a low yield task compared to everything else going on
Josh Mandel (Sep 19 2021 at 22:37):
What open issues exist for FHIR R5 that require connectathon testing, and do we expect this will happen as part of the Jan 2022 connectathon?
Josh Mandel (Sep 22 2021 at 18:46):
Does this make sense as an FMG topic? #IG creation > ValueSet links
TL;DR: does FMG set expectations for when/how HL7-published IGs can depend on externally managed (and potentially not-publicly-hosted) content?
Grahame Grieve (Sep 23 2021 at 03:15):
well, we don't get a lot of say in that question
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 20 2022 at 14:17):
We need to alert WGs as to what the agreed terminology expectations are for terminologies - and start exposing the rules in QA
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 20 2022 at 16:41):
FMG needs to review (and ideally approve) this specification withdrawal from FHIR-I: https://confluence.hl7.org/display/FHIRI/Data+Access+Framework+%28DAF%29+Withdrawal
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 07 2022 at 15:35):
We need to put together our NIBs for R5
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 18 2022 at 17:58):
Request from @Brett Marquard to formally publish a planned timeline for R5 publication (when we expect the different ballots to be, when we expect to publish). Need to discuss if we want to do this, what we want to say, and where we want to put it.
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 18 2022 at 17:59):
Probably should have something similar for R4B.
Brett Marquard (Feb 18 2022 at 19:04):
Thanks Lloyd -- A confluence page in the FMG area would be great, even if dates are tentative.
Josh Mandel (Feb 22 2022 at 18:29):
IG versioning: example from https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/US-Core/qa
This is an example where US Core is depending on an outdated version of SDC and indeed a ballot-specific version (not a published version).
- Under our current versioning guidance, should IG ballot versions look more like
2.8.1-snapshotso they can be identified as nonpublication versions? - Do we consider it a technical correction to update an IG so it's using the latest published versions of its dependencies?
Josh Mandel (Feb 22 2022 at 19:51):
Topic: Out of cycle ballots
I missed (and from a non-scientific survey with insufficient sample size ~100% of others did too!) the fact that specs like PDEX were going up for out of cycle ballots, with the deadline already passed. Reviewing traffic in the relevant streams here, I don't see any notice. Should we add an expectation that out of cycle ballots be announced in the relevant Zulip community streams?
Lynn Laakso (Feb 22 2022 at 19:59):
Existing ballot announcement emails that go out to the entire membership are not sufficient?
Josh Mandel (Feb 22 2022 at 20:10):
No --
- lots of folks participate in Zulip discussions and are not HL7 members
- lots of folks pay less attention to blast e-mails than they do to streams of specific interest
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 22 2022 at 20:43):
@Lynn Laakso - do the ballot notifications go to only members or to anyone on HL7's email hit-list?
Lynn Laakso (Feb 22 2022 at 20:46):
everyone on the hl7news list, and also on the home page
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 22 2022 at 20:48):
Putting stuff on the home page doesn't count as a notification to anyone :)
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 22 2022 at 20:49):
Agree that it might be a good idea to get ballot announcements to appear on the #Announcements stream - however that's a TSC discussion, not an FMG discussion.
Lynn Laakso (Feb 22 2022 at 20:50):
added to my ballot preparation checklist
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 22 2022 at 20:50):
Also, as a side note, we did undertake a review of all of these specifications readiness for ballot on the last couple of FMG calls, so FMG members (at least) should have been aware they were coming up for ballot :)
Josh Mandel (Feb 22 2022 at 21:05):
Lloyd McKenzie: Agree that it might be a good idea to get ballot announcements to appear on the #Announcements stream - however that's a TSC discussion, not an FMG discussion.
My claim is that ballots should also be announced in their community streams.
Josh Mandel (Feb 22 2022 at 21:06):
FMG members (at least) should have been aware they were coming up for ballot :
Also TSC. But let's just say that I... often need to hear things multiple ways before they sink in ;-) I doubt I'm unique in that regard.
Josh Mandel (Feb 22 2022 at 21:06):
The point here is: how do we encourage rich and deep participation.
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 22 2022 at 21:27):
Getting HQ to announce in the community streams is hard - because HQ will have no idea what stream(s) are relevant to a given ballot. Co-chairs are certainly welcome to draw attention to a ballot to their community - and many do. Da Vinci was certainly highlighting the ballots to everyone who was signed up to the Da Vinci list as well as everyone who attends the Da Vinci calls.
Josh Mandel (Feb 22 2022 at 21:43):
I didn't mention anything about HQ.
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 22 2022 at 21:45):
Ballot announcements are handled by HQ... I don't think we want official announcements coming from anyone else because of the risk someone will get it wrong.
Josh Mandel (Feb 22 2022 at 21:47):
I'm hoping we can discuss tomorrow. I didn't mention HQ or official announcements; rather I am trying to make sure that we establish community expectations such that in the real world, people who care about a ballot will learn about it and are encouraged to sign up ... through whatever combination of channels is most likely to have an impact.
Josh Mandel (Feb 22 2022 at 21:49):
(Yes I am mad at myself for having missed a deadline, but as I mentioned it's not just me!)
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 22 2022 at 21:52):
Please submit feedback regardless :)
Josh Mandel (Feb 23 2022 at 02:23):
I shall!
Josh Mandel (Feb 24 2022 at 18:25):
Metadataresource
-
Right now lists "http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/fiwg/index.cfm" as workgroup -- is this intentional?
-
All resources that implement Canonicalresource also implement Metadataresource -- is there a reason to have two categories? When would a resource ever be Canonical but not Metadata?
-
Shouldn't be listed as "normative", right? Or... at least not if R5 is non-normative ;-)
Grahame Grieve (Feb 24 2022 at 19:47):
no it should be FHIR-I
Grahame Grieve (Feb 24 2022 at 19:47):
I'm not sure about normative.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 24 2022 at 19:49):
the committees decide what a resource hangs off. CDS defined MetadataResource, and didn't make the case to FHIR-I or vocab to use it. Vocab just decide to make CodeSystem, ValueSet and ConceptMap implement MetadataResource not CanonicalResource. it would be up to FHIR-I (I think) to make the same decision. Though I'd vote against that in the absence of identified use cases
Josh Mandel (Feb 28 2022 at 17:41):
Re: Topic: Out of cycle ballots -- a note in #Announcements would go a long way too.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 01 2022 at 08:42):
ok from the next release of the IG publisher, we'll get something more in this dependency summary:
Grahame Grieve (Mar 01 2022 at 08:42):
Grahame Grieve (Mar 01 2022 at 08:43):
The flag indicates whether the dependency is to an interim release, a milestone release, or an old version that's been superceded, or an error
Josh Mandel (Mar 01 2022 at 14:42):
Cool! And in future, interim releases will also be recognizable by the presence of dashes?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 01 2022 at 21:05):
well, yes, that too
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 02 2022 at 21:31):
Can we add to the meeting today in other business (if we have time) discussion on process where a workgroup votes to change content that it is not the responsible party (as listed on the resource)
Hans Buitendijk (Mar 03 2022 at 17:52):
Which stream has the R4A/B/R5 discussion?
Lynn Laakso (Mar 03 2022 at 17:57):
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 07 2022 at 20:32):
Question from some of our editors on R5, do we really still require the RIM mappings?
John Moehrke (Mar 07 2022 at 20:38):
I thought we had decided to drop that requirement.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 07 2022 at 23:44):
RIM mappings are now optional - though the tooling doesn't know that yet.
Josh Mandel (Mar 14 2022 at 19:11):
Publication request at https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/Smart+Web+Messaging+STU1+Publication+Request (we approved in #fhir/infrastructure-wg today).
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 16 2022 at 15:58):
https://confluence.hl7.org/display/CGW/CG+IG+STU2+Publication
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 16 2022 at 19:06):
Also "Edict on IG colors" (see https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179252-IG-creation/topic/Can.20I.20change.20colours.20of.20an.20HL7.20FHIR.20template.3F)
Josh Mandel (Mar 18 2022 at 19:54):
QA process for search params -- when/how to use common params vs defining specifically within a resource. Currently http://build.fhir.org/searchparameter-registry.html shows a wild mix for "*-patient" params.
Kevin Power (Mar 21 2022 at 14:54):
Lloyd McKenzie said:
https://confluence.hl7.org/display/CGW/CG+IG+STU2+Publication
Hi @Lloyd McKenzie - After a review of the feedback from the FMG notes, we have made some changes and it should be ready to review again.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 21 2022 at 15:38):
@Anne Wizauer - can you put this on Wednesday's agenda again?
Kevin Power (Mar 21 2022 at 21:13):
Just FYI - I pushed some additional changes today (just in the off chance someone started to review :smile:). Thanks all.
Josh Mandel (Mar 23 2022 at 14:48):
For agenda today, can we review the R4B publication timeline?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
