Stream: terminology
Topic: Block Vote
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 06:54):
I have gone through the FHIR ballot items proposing a block vote for them. There is 76 items in the block vote, including items from the following individuals: @Joel Francis @Meenaxi Gosai @Carol Macumber @Jay Lyle @Carmela Couderc @François Macary @Robert McClure @Danielle Friend
The block vote includes items that are neg-mj, and that are labelled in person. But we just don't have time to go through all the "in person " items. :-(
So, please, go through the dispositions, and review them. in gForge, this is Reviewing Work Group = Vocabulary, Group = Block Vote 1, Ballot = 2018-May Core Norm Conformance, status = (any open status). (ask me direct if you need more help than that).
If you don't like the disposition - please discuss them here. Don't just ask for the item to be pulled from the block vote straight away. we can pull it if needed, but I'd rather fix them and leave them in.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 06:58):
I've explicitly put to take 14 specific items to the concalls.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 06:59):
and I've only looked at ballot stuff so far :-(
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 07:33):
There's a few waiting for input
Jay Lyle (Jun 14 2018 at 12:40):
The maturity page referenced for 16068 & 16069 looks empty to me: am I missing something?
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 12:41):
you should get a multi-tab spreadsheet with 100+ tabs
Jay Lyle (Jun 14 2018 at 12:42):
I see the tabs. The cells don't appear to contain evidence.
Rob Hausam (Jun 14 2018 at 12:42):
go to the Resource tab
Rob Hausam (Jun 14 2018 at 12:43):
I know that isn't very obvious
Jay Lyle (Jun 14 2018 at 12:44):
Thanks
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 12:46):
looking at it... that's not the sheet... I think I got the wrong reference
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 12:48):
@Lloyd McKenzie where's the master FMG spradsheet for maturity levels?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 12:53):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1COTmtlXgGWuFpoSr1ZQQK30S7ReCpVsk_NZI6xIeSHI
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 12:54):
Link on the FHIR wiki is titled "FHIR FMM/QA Tracking Spreadsheet"
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 13:04):
what happened to it? there was a place where we listed all the systems, the connectathons, etc. all the actual evidence... this sheet is just full of boilerplate crap
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 13:13):
That's all there
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 13:13):
(Where it's actually filled in - which is generally just the resource tab)
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 13:22):
so I spent hours filling in the code system stuff - I can't see it anywhere
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 13:23):
ah - at the bottom of the resource tab
Rob Hausam (Jun 14 2018 at 13:26):
yes - pretty much everything is there
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 13:26):
Perhaps move it to the correct tab? :)
Jay Lyle (Jun 14 2018 at 14:25):
I'm happy with all mine. While I know it's late to complain about it, I'm concerned about the level of detail on the test/maturity sheet.
Rob Hausam (Jun 14 2018 at 14:29):
Thanks, Jay, for letting us know you're OK with the proposed resolutions. And I think we can look further at the level of detail that we're capturing for the maturity tracking.
Robert McClure (Jun 14 2018 at 16:50):
I am ok with the resolutions except 16334 has a typo: change valee to value
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 14 2018 at 16:56):
Corrected
Grahame Grieve (Jun 14 2018 at 20:14):
With regard to the level of detail... you'd be surprised how hard it is to gather that information well. It's not something we've ever gathered before. I hoped for more... until I started working on the spreadsheet
Grahame Grieve (Jun 19 2018 at 11:25):
@Carmela Couderc - when will you have a chance to look at this?
Carmela Couderc (Jun 19 2018 at 18:34):
If the new definition of 'related to' were included in the tracker, it would be helpful. Its difficult for me to give the OK for a block vote on 16372 with the resolution of 'beef up the definition'.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 19 2018 at 19:58):
ok. how about we change it t:
Grahame Grieve (Jun 19 2018 at 20:00):
The concepts are related to each other, and have some equivalence relationship with at least some overlap in meaning, but the exact relationship is not known
Carmela Couderc (Jun 20 2018 at 14:13):
Friendly suggestion: The concepts are related to each other, but the exact relationship is not known. IMHO related to doesn't imply equivalence or overlap in meaning. I think I understand why you suggested what you did, because the concept is a member of the Equivalence Value Set, but "related to" is not an equivalence relationship so its problematic leaving it there. Understand the direction for concept map is to include non-equivalence relationships however until that happens, this equivalence relationship value should be clearly documented so it can be used or not used correctly in the interim.
Grahame Grieve (Jun 20 2018 at 17:18):
that doesn't bring me any clarity. Until concept map includes non-equivalent relationships, related to does mean some kind of equivalence relationship, and the current definition implies that it does
Carmela Couderc (Jun 20 2018 at 20:04):
I see your point, however I struggle to see why a concept map would be created for a relationship that is not known. Does anyone have any use cases?
Michael Lawley (Jun 21 2018 at 03:22):
If the ConceptMap is algorithmically generated, then the algorithm may be confident enough to assert the existence of an equivalence relationship, but not whether it is wider or narrow or ...
Grahame Grieve (Jun 22 2018 at 12:12):
yes it was legacy use- you are importing from a map that claims some equivalance relationship, but not which type - that could be clear, i guess
Grahame Grieve (Jul 02 2018 at 00:38):
ok. moved the block vote. @Carmela Couderc I removed GF#16372 from it, since we're not getting anywhere
Grahame Grieve (Jul 02 2018 at 00:41):
block vote details: @Alexander Henket @Brett Marquard @Brian Pech @Carmela Couderc @Carol Macumber @Danielle Friend @Elliot Silver @Eric Haas @Erich Schulz @Ewout Kramer @François Macary @Geoff Low @Jay Lyle @Jens Villadsen @Jim Steel @Joel Francis @Joel Schneider @Karl M. Davis @Kevin Power @Lee Surprenant @Lin Zhang @Meenaxi Gosai @Michael Lawley @Peter Jordan @Ramiro Villarreal @Reuben Daniels @Richard Townley-O'Neill @Rob Hausam @Robert McClure @Russ Hamm @Stefan Lang @Yunwei Wang
Grahame Grieve (Jul 02 2018 at 00:43):
GF#13292 CodeSystem Background %26 context uses ambiguous terminology for urls (Ewout Kramer) Considered - No action required
GF#16835 The FHIR resources and operations should be evaluated against the VSD to ensure consistency as to not release two HL7 standards that contradict each other. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2386 (Caroline Macumber) In Person Considered - No action required
GF#17277 Support for abstract in compose (Alexander Henket) Considered - No action required
GF#16070 ConceptMap has mismatched maturity - normative but maturity level 3. (Danielle Friend) Considered - Question Answered
GF#16487 CodeSystem %24validate code operation - maturity level (Carmela Couderc) Considered - Question Answered
GF#16746 This begins to encroach on CLD syntax. Are there use cases that make it clear that this is useful enough to surface in this resource%3F Examples would help. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2359 (Jay Lyle) In Person Considered - Question Answered
GF#16782 Is this a concept map or a concept equivalence map%3F Resource name is broader%2C property name is narrower%2C most values in equivalence set are narrower%2C except relatedTo. Clarify%3B suggest approaches for other kinds of relationships if not included here.. - 2 (Jay Lyle) In Person Considered for Future Use
GF#14672 Valueset.date descriptions are inconsistent and unclear (Robert McClure)
GF#17335 Genetics code system reference update (Kevin Power)
GF#16068 CodeSystem Operations shouldn%27t be normative (Danielle Friend) Not Persuasive
GF#16069 ValueSet Operations shouldn%27t be normative (Danielle Friend) Not Persuasive
GF#16354 Why codesystem-subsumes extension should be a modifier one%3F (Francois Macary) Not Persuasive
GF#16435 ValueSet.compose.lockedDate (Carmela Couderc) Not Persuasive
GF#16474 CodeSystem.filter.operator - required binding (Carmela Couderc) Not Persuasive
GF#16768 This seems less %22fixed%22 than %27default%27 for any code not otherwise mapped - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2365 (Jay Lyle) In Person Not Persuasive
GF#16798 %22Inactive%22 typically suggests that the thing referenced is not active%2C not that it has the capacity to include incactive contents. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2372 (Jay Lyle) In Person Not Persuasive
GF#16802 Are these the only permitted operations for the content logical definition%3F I was expecting some sort of black box to accommodate other syntaxes. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2373 (Jay Lyle) In Person Not Persuasive
GF#16817 Evidence that resource is implemented and merits level 5 not found - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2377 (Jay Lyle) In Person Not Persuasive
GF#16821 Evidence that resource is implemented and merits level 5 not found - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2378 (Jay Lyle) In Person Not Persuasive
GF#14687 how can an unmapped concept have a canonical URL for the %28a%29 map%3F - 2018-Jan Core%2310 (Carmela Couderc) Not Persuasive with Mod
GF#15736 Addition of designation language%2C use%2C and value for primary display of concepts in ValueSet.compose.include.concept (Reuben Daniels) Not Persuasive with Mod
GF#16824 Evidence that resource is implemented and merits level 5 not found - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2379 (Jay Lyle) In Person Not Persuasive with Mod
GF#12931 add documentation how to compose as valuset fo heirarchical code systems (Eric Haas) Not Related
GF#12997 QA%3A Rename valueset.%24expand parameter %22identifier%22 to %22url%22 (Grahame Grieve) Not Related
GF#13203 No reference to ExpansionProfile in %24validate-code operation (Yunwei Wang) Not Related
GF#14329 CodeSystem%24lookup needs a more comprehensive example%28s%29 (Michael Lawley) Not Related
GF#15149 maturity level of terminology service operations is not specified (Joel Schneider) Not Related
GF#16679 Will need to be updated to upcoming normative value set from the Office of Management and Budget that will be forthcoming - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %232 (Chris Brancato) Not Related
GF#12880 Change CodeSystem search parameter name to content-mode and update value set (Robert Hausam) Persuasive
GF#12984 Example output for %24closure should include a %27group%27 element (Jim Steel) Persuasive
GF#13122 Incorrect%2Fmissing OIDs for DICOM value sets (Elliot Silver) Persuasive
GF#13291 Scope of CodeSystem misses important usecase (Ewout Kramer) Persuasive
GF#13770 typo%28s%29 in %24lookup example response on codesystem-operations.html page (Joel Schneider) Persuasive
GF#14124 Define a TerminologyCapabilities resource (Grahame Grieve) Persuasive
GF#14247 Where is the enumeration%3F (Lin Zhang) Persuasive
GF#14297 either...or (Lin Zhang) Persuasive
GF#14355 Mis-named in-parameter In text introduction to ValueSet %24validate-code operation (Peter Jordan) Persuasive
GF#14461 Address Type Example Mapping is incorrect (Caroline Macumber) Persuasive
GF#14490 ValueSet Operation Outcome is Empty (Geoff Low) Persuasive
GF#14539 The existence of a CodeSystem resource on a server should only be interpreted as a declaration of the code system properties%2C not as a declaration of server support and expected behavior (Robert Hausam) Persuasive
GF#15144 ValueSet.expansion.parameter should include all of the parameters %28including default%29 that the server used to generate the expansion (Robert Hausam) Persuasive
GF#15557 Change the data type of ValueSet.compose.include.filter.value from code to string (Robert Hausam) Persuasive
GF#15904 Need to make conceptMap for the AdministrativeGender (Robert McClure) Persuasive
GF#15956 CodeSystem%2F%24compose should not have maturity level 5 (Michael Lawley) Persuasive
GF#15957 Code System - Description of Supplements Search Parameter is Misleading (Peter Jordan) Persuasive
GF#16299 Terminology Capabilities (Francois Macary) Persuasive
GF#16301 Terminology Capabilities%3A Suggest to add subsumption capability to codeSystem (Francois Macary) Persuasive
GF#16332 Value set reference section needs further clarification (Robert McClure) Persuasive
GF#16358 Improve definition of %22exact%22 in CodeSystem%2F%24compose (Francois Macary) Persuasive
GF#16379 Value Set and Code System Definition of Code System and Value Set should be identical (Carmela Couderc) Persuasive
GF#16442 ValueSet.expansion.identifier (Carmela Couderc) Persuasive
GF#16451 %24expansion operation - expansion size (Carmela Couderc) Persuasive
GF#16464 CodeSystem.identifier (Carmela Couderc) Persuasive
GF#16484 ValueSet expand%24 - code system reference %3D fragment or example (Carmela Couderc) Persuasive
GF#16726 Purpose and Use Context need to be more clearly distinguished. Examples would be helpful. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2354 (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16734 maintain is ambiguous%3A meaning both %22tend to%22 and %22hold firm%22 - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2356 (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16738 resource seems ambiguous%3A could refer to the system or to the instance representation. It might be possible to adopt a terminology to preserve the distinction. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2357 (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16759 Purpose and Use Context need to be more clearly distinguished. Examples would be helpful. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2362 (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16761 Abstract enough to require an example. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2363 (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16764 Abstract enough to require an example. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2364 (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16786 Consistently distinguish between %22value set resource definition%22 and %22value set resource instance%22 - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2369 (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16794 Purpose and Use Context need to be more clearly distinguished. Examples would be helpful. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2371 (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16806 Hierarchy not defined. An illustration of what this is for and how it is to be used would be helpful. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2374 (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16810 Enhance the property definition with some insight from 4.8.7 regarding %22this%22 expansion being the expansion set created by a certain set of parameters%2C which could be repeated%2C not necessarily this instance of a server response to a request for expansion. (Jay Lyle) In Person Persuasive
GF#16838 Duplicative bullet points%2C suggest removal - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2387 (Caroline Macumber) In Person Persuasive
GF#16849 Improve the wording in the Resource ValueSet - Content page%2C Value Set Identification section. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2393 (Meenaxi Gosai) Persuasive
GF#16852 Correct the typo on the word %22exclude%22 in the Composition Rules section. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2394 (Meenaxi Gosai) Persuasive
GF#16855 Please correct the punctuation after the word %22However%22 in the Value Set Expansion section. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2395 (Meenaxi Gosai) Persuasive
GF#16858 In the Search Parameters section%2C suggest adding a link to the %22additional notes on the value set resource%22 - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2396 (Meenaxi Gosai) Persuasive
GF#16861 Suggest updating the wording in the Terminology Bindings section for element codeSystem-Content. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2397 (Meenaxi Gosai) Persuasive
GF#16864 Please correct the typo in the ConceptMap.Identifier description%2C item Note - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2398 (Meenaxi Gosai) Persuasive
GF#16867 Please correct the typo in the ConceptMap.Identifier description%2C item ConceptMap.group.element.target.dependsOn.property - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2399 (Meenaxi Gosai) Persuasive
GF#16870 Please correct the typo in the ConceptMap.Identifier description%2C item ConceptMap.group.unmapped.mode - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %23100 (Meenaxi Gosai) Persuasive
GF#16872 Please correct the spacing in the description for the Profiles. - 2018-May Core Norm Conformance %2310
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Jul 03 2018 at 00:36):
Where is the list of issues in the black vote?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 03 2018 at 00:45):
Previous message in this thread...
Grahame Grieve (Jul 03 2018 at 00:53):
note that vocab have asked for the block vote to be broken up into multiple pieces. I missed that - @Rob Hausam is working on that now
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Jul 03 2018 at 03:17):
Thanks Lloyd. I found what I wanted going to Grahame's initial post and querying gForge.
Rob Hausam (Jul 03 2018 at 03:34):
We talked about it again briefly on the Vocab WG FHIR Tracker Issues call today. I'll be sending an update by tomorrow.
Rob Hausam (Jul 03 2018 at 03:35):
But it will be the same list of items, just broken up as Grahame said.
Jay Lyle (Jul 06 2018 at 12:44):
When does this happen?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 06 2018 at 13:05):
vocab this week. though I think ROb is going to propose a series of smaller votes
Rob Hausam (Jul 06 2018 at 13:07):
yes - I will get that out today (I've been pulled away on another task)
Jay Lyle (Jul 06 2018 at 17:44):
Starting with the 9th/10th call?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 06 2018 at 20:11):
not starting - need to get voted on that day - time is running out
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
