Stream: cds hooks/committers
Topic: docs / PR #126 Indicate the required fields in a Discover...
Github Notifications (Dec 21 2017 at 14:49):
kpshek edited PR #126
from patch-1
to master
I've tightened up the table showing the fields in a service description such that each field has an associated "priority" of REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL (not used in this example). This change illustrates my recommendation that the 1.0 spec needs to be specified more explicitly. In addition, it carries out my recommendation to make the Prefetch field RECOMMENDED rather than required, so that each provider can decide whether to prefetch or allow the CDS service to fetch its own data as needed.
Github Notifications (Dec 21 2017 at 19:10):
I can see the wisdom of making "prefetch" OPTIONAL rather than RECOMMENDED. Agreed that not all CDS services will need prefetched data.
I do not agree with the recommendation to limit priorities to REQUIRED or not (yes/no). This specification should use the conformance language specified in RFC 2119 (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt), just as the FHIR specification and SMART on FHIR specifications (and most other specifications) do. The nuanced difference between "not required" and OPTIONAL or RECOMMENDED is important to capture.
Github Notifications (Dec 21 2017 at 21:11):
@bakerdb - Fair enough. I'm fine with specifying either
REQUIRED
orOPTIONAL
for the fields here. I also agree that if we have something that isRECOMMENDED
(though we don't here), we can call that out.
Github Notifications (Jan 08 2018 at 18:19):
In an offline conversation with @bakerdb, she is going to update
prefetch
toOPTIONAL
and then we should be good on this PR.
Github Notifications (Jan 08 2018 at 19:01):
bakerdb synchronized PR #126
Github Notifications (Jan 22 2018 at 18:21):
kpshek closed PR #126
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC