Stream: fmg
Topic: limiting-resource-count
Josh Mandel (Nov 13 2016 at 14:43):
At AMIA in a panel with Chuck who just introduce the concept that "the FHIR community has a commitment to limit the number of resources to 100." Is this true and I missed it? (And is it written down somewhere?)
Grahame Grieve (Nov 13 2016 at 14:46):
no. not commitment. We had an intent to be 100-150 (as opposed to 1500 or 50000)
Grahame Grieve (Nov 13 2016 at 14:46):
and that's stated clearly here:
Grahame Grieve (Nov 13 2016 at 14:48):
no can't see it on the pages I thought it would be on
Paul Knapp (Nov 15 2016 at 07:19):
That the number of resources was expected to be smallish (100-150) as opposed to thousands has been there from the beginning - but the notion that one should fix an arbitrary number is nonsense.
Paul Knapp (Nov 15 2016 at 07:20):
We should have as many resources as we need and no more.
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 15 2016 at 15:03):
True, but we keep in mind a rough number when evaluating need. If someone "needed" a resource for blood pressure, we would likely push back to avoid the proliferation of resources that defining at that level of granularity would result in.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
