Stream: fmg
Topic: QA Freeze Issues
Grahame Grieve (Feb 28 2017 at 10:57):
Issues are stacking up fast that need approval for change during QA period. We will need to be organised and focused to get through them. And we need to get through them
Grahame Grieve (Feb 28 2017 at 10:58):
can we pick a way to mark tasks as 'for QA period approval by FMG'?
Paul Knapp (Feb 28 2017 at 13:00):
Tracker 12919 is a QA issue regarding the naming of Claim/EOB.payee.resourceType to resource and aligning the binding strength.
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 28 2017 at 15:43):
I can add a "group". What are our criteria for approving changes during the QA period? My leaning is to just allow descriptive changes. What filters do we want to have on substantive changes? Particularly those that may impact downstream IGs?
John Moehrke (Feb 28 2017 at 20:20):
Imaging realized that the dose extensions are still present in the STU3 build. Yet tracker GF#8822, and GF#8823 were passed.
Lloyd McKenzie (Feb 28 2017 at 21:59):
Passed doesn't mean Applied. Removing them would be a substantive change, so would require FMG approval.
John Moehrke (Mar 01 2017 at 12:51):
yes,exactly. Imaging wants to ask FMG for approval. This is a long standing problem.
John Moehrke (Mar 02 2017 at 17:14):
StructDocs discussed FMM levels for Composition, DocumentReference, and DocumentManifest. Both Composition and DocumentManifest are clearly only at FMM 2; but DocumentReference is one checkbox away from FMM3. That checkbox is that the _summary flag is TRUE for all elements. It is true that there has not been a discussion of what appropriate _summary settings are for DocumentReference. Is it possible to get a FMM 3 exception for this one thing? Committee discussion wanted me to ask FMG (they named @Lloyd McKenzie ), but I know they meant all of FMG. Note IHE would prefer 3 to recognize the much more attention DocumentReference has received. Note current acceptance of FMM 2.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 02 2017 at 19:08):
surely, in practice, summary would be everything but DocumentReference.content?
John Moehrke (Mar 02 2017 at 20:04):
DocumentReference.content.attachment as the format is useful
John Moehrke (Mar 03 2017 at 12:48):
Please may I make that change to DocumentReferece so that it can be FMM3? @Lloyd McKenzie @Grahame Grieve
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 03 2017 at 16:00):
@John Moehrke What's the specific change you want to make?
John Moehrke (Mar 03 2017 at 16:13):
I put my proposal, inspired by @Grahame Grieve . GF#12949 -- @Brett Marquard do you agree? -- If this change can be made, then I will propose it for StructDoc approval. If this change can be made then DocumentReference can be set to FMM 3
Grahame Grieve (Mar 03 2017 at 18:54):
wouldn
Grahame Grieve (Mar 03 2017 at 18:55):
wouldn't you say that it's actually DocumentReference.content.attachment.data that's not part of the summary?
John Moehrke (Mar 03 2017 at 18:59):
can I say that? I would like to, but don't know how to subset a datatype (Attachment)
Grahame Grieve (Mar 03 2017 at 18:59):
you don't need to. it's already said
John Moehrke (Mar 03 2017 at 18:59):
so, then what already is in the build is already sufficiently selected for summary?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 03 2017 at 19:01):
you just have to be explicit about it. Let me check that this fixes the warning
Grahame Grieve (Mar 03 2017 at 19:24):
yes that does
Grahame Grieve (Mar 03 2017 at 19:24):
and since it doesn't change anything about the output at all, I can commit that
John Moehrke (Mar 03 2017 at 19:44):
yeah!
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 03 2017 at 22:56):
So is there a substantive change the FMG needs to approve here?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 04 2017 at 19:21):
no
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
