Stream: patient empowerment
Topic: Call it "the HL7 FHIR *standard*"?
Dave deBronkart (Jun 22 2019 at 23:42):
[Subject edited later to add "HL7" per discussion below - HT @Lloyd McKenzie]
While working on my blog series, and seeing the early public reaction to it, I've had a thought, which I'll float here for consideration:
In our public messaging it will be prudent to refer to it as "the FHIR standard," not just "FHIR." (At least, say "the FHIR standard" early in the text, then just "FHIR" later.
This may reduce initial confusion about what FHIR is - a product? A company? A conspiracy? No, it's a standard, not unlike HTML (or something).
What do others think? My perspective is largely informed by working in consumer marketing, where it's important to treat a brand as an ADJECTIVE, e.g. "Sanka brand decaffeinated coffee." My perspective is not necessarily the most useful one, so - what do you think?
Josh Mandel (Jun 22 2019 at 23:45):
(From my own narrow perspective, at least, I'd say the inline emphasis is a win -- though I'm not sure it's of deep significance.)
Dave deBronkart (Jun 22 2019 at 23:47):
Examples:
- There's no such thing as "a Nintendo" - Reddit thread on a long-ago poster on the same theme
- Never use your brand name as an adjective or verb
I'm not saying we need to go THIS far - just pointing to examples of what I'm talking about: it's useful to be clear about what a new & unfamiliar word is referring to. We don't have commercial consequences the way Xerox & Nintendo do/did, but the underlying cognitive point is relevant.
Dave deBronkart (Jun 22 2019 at 23:48):
@Josh Mandel -
the inline emphasis
Que?
Josh Mandel (Jun 22 2019 at 23:53):
Sorry -- by "inline emphasis" I just meant "emphasizing the fact that FHIR is a standard when mentioning FHIR". (Please let me know if that's unclear.)
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 23 2019 at 00:45):
HL7 would prefer if you called it the "HL7 FHIR standard"
Dave deBronkart (Jun 23 2019 at 00:47):
@Lloyd McKenzie - I don't know if you speak officially for HL7 or are just saying "I know what they'll say," but yeah! I've been noticing that it helps clarify things to say that.
- For the case where a reader knows HL7, it's instantly clarifying.
- For the case where a reader doesn't, it introduces the proper parent, and sets the stage for subsequent discussions about context.
Dave deBronkart (Jun 23 2019 at 00:48):
(Is it kosher if I now edit this topic's title?)
Debi Willis (Jun 23 2019 at 01:00):
I think that’s a good idea. Some people have thought it was a language or company. Saying HL7 FHIR standard identifies the company as HL7 and FHIR as a standard and not a language.
Josh Mandel (Jun 23 2019 at 01:11):
(you should feel welcome to edit titles as long as the system allows it :-))
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 23 2019 at 01:30):
HL7 is trying to rebrand "FHIR" as "HL7 FHIR" to help re-enforce their responsibility for it (as a few organizations who have been using the FHIR name haven't been making that terribly clear). The fact that it happens to be useful is good too :)
Dave deBronkart (Jun 23 2019 at 01:53):
TOTALLY AGREE! Does this rise to the level of an Announcement?
All member orgs ought to receive (at the level of whoever's-the-boss-there) a simple statement about this.
PRAGMATIC ANGLE: every standard has a lot more credibility if it's clearly COMMUNICATED as a standard, even more so if it's communicated as a standard that's being supported by every big name in the industry and zillions of less-big. (Logo parades are powerful.)
Fundamental thing to remember: after years of being the insider club who knows all about FHIR (to the point where "HL7 FHIR" would be redundant), we're barely beginning the stage of being visible to people who have no IDEA about FHIR nor HL7. Journalists outside health IT, zillions of health IT workers everywhere (around the world!), etc.
Let's avoid confusion, the root of the dreaded FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). Essential marketing principle: "Clarity trumps persuasion." In my book, one aphorism is "Clarity is power."
Mikael Rinnetmäki (Jun 28 2019 at 12:28):
I've often referred to it as the HL7 FHIR specification. When I've called it the HL7 FHIR standard, I've gotten feedback on it not being even normative (which seems to be less of a problem for a specification) and also questions on HL7's position as a standards publishing organization, in relation to ISO or IEEE, which I find confusing. Never so when calling it a specification.
If HL7 wishes to push for the HL7 FHIR standard instead of the HL7 FHIR specification, I can try to change my wording and find the right answers to such questions. Some template answers would be appreciated. :)
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 28 2019 at 13:21):
HL7 is an ANSI-accredited standards development organization and FHIR has gone through the formal ANSI approved standards development process. As such, it's legitimate to call it a 'standard'. Normative is a level of standards maturity, but it isn't the boundary that makes something a standard or not. (It's also a 'standard' in the practical sense - large numbers of implementers in many places are aligning their interfaces to it.) That said, 'specification' isn't a wrong/inappropriate term and I don't think HL7 has strong feelings one way or the other.
Dave deBronkart (Jun 28 2019 at 13:29):
Really useful distinctions, @Lloyd McKenzie - thanks.
In the graphic arts I witnessed hair-splitting(?) like @Mikael Rinnetmäki describes, and it's so nice to be able to poke back at picky people, using a HIGHER level of rigor. :-))
Dave deBronkart (Jun 28 2019 at 15:43):
I humbly propose that the FHIR FAQ page be updated to include what Lloyd added, so that Mikael and others can simply link to it.
All the particles may exist elsewhere (e.g. "HL7 is an ANSI-accredited...", "FHIR has gone through...") but it could be useful to have it all in one place. Perhaps even add an FAQ "Is HL7 FHIR a standard, or what?" :-) with Lloyd's post here as the answer.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jun 28 2019 at 15:54):
That isn't a page we control (and isn't one I even knew existed...)
Dave deBronkart (Jun 28 2019 at 16:48):
Well let's be empowered and speak up! :slight_smile:. Tell 'em the new Patient Workgroup is already on the job:)
Jenni Syed (Jul 01 2019 at 17:17):
This is called out a bit in the license for FHIR: http://hl7.org/fhir/r4/license.html
Jenni Syed (Jul 01 2019 at 17:17):
"When referencing the FHIR® standard in a website, document, presentation, or otherwise, please in a place of prominence refer to it as the "HL7® FHIR® standard". In subsequent uses, please refer to it as the "FHIR® standard" or "FHIR®", using the ® symbol as often as is practical, at least once on each page of printed matter, generally in connection with the first or dominant usage."
Dave deBronkart (Jul 01 2019 at 18:14):
Ah, excellent, @Jenni Syed ... we need to copy that out to where it's visible to people who talk ABOUT the standard but have never seen the license :-)
Who's the right one of us to make that a policy decision - @Wayne Kubick? (Is anyone at HL7 responsible for dissemination, outreach, marketing?)
Dave deBronkart (Jul 03 2019 at 15:49):
I just realised - whoever in HL7 wants us to call it the "HL7 FHIR standard", not just "FHIR," has some butt-kicking to do, to replace things like this:
pasted image
Brendan Keeler (Jul 04 2019 at 03:00):
"whoever in HL7" -> Dave, isn't that person you? You started this thread
Dave deBronkart (Jul 06 2019 at 02:55):
"whoever in HL7" -> Dave, isn't that person you? You started this thread
Very funny, @Brendan Keeler ... I'm not even in HL7 yet, much less an officer with authority to kick butt :-)
I'm not "in" HL7 because there isn't yet a member type for someone like me, not to mention not having an employer. So far this is just a really interesting hobby. Not that I'm not interested!
Grahame Grieve (Jul 26 2019 at 22:08):
The really important people in HL7 are not "in" HL7. Dave, you're part of the club
Dave deBronkart (Jul 28 2019 at 05:15):
Yay
Virginia Lorenzi (Jul 31 2019 at 13:50):
"whoever in HL7" -> Dave, isn't that person you? You started this thread
Very funny, Brendan Keeler ... I'm not even in HL7 yet, much less an officer with authority to kick butt :-)
I'm not "in" HL7 because there isn't yet a member type for someone like me, not to mention not having an employer. So far this is just a really interesting hobby. Not that I'm not interested!
Dave - I do think "individual membership" category fits you.
Dave deBronkart (Aug 06 2019 at 18:03):
Bumping this back up ... who does control the FHIR FAQ page, so we can upgrade the text to say "HL7 FHIR standard" as discussed above?
Dave deBronkart (Aug 06 2019 at 18:05):
Oh ha ha it looks like they already did change it to HL7 FHIR, though they don't use the word "standard" in the phrase. (They do say it under "What is FHIR") https://www.himss.org/faq-hl7-fhir-and-its-implications
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 21:03):
HIMSS control it. I'll get them to update, but I'm waiting till there's a single set of updates, and that's waiting on HL7 publishing it's own set of FAQs
Grahame Grieve (Aug 06 2019 at 21:03):
which is in process
Dave deBronkart (Aug 07 2019 at 02:01):
HIMSS control it. I'll get them to update, but I'm waiting till there's a single set of updates, and that's waiting on HL7 publishing it's own set of FAQs
OMG, I didn't even notice it's not an HL7 page.
Ricky Sahu (Aug 13 2019 at 16:00):
@Lloyd McKenzie I'd love to support this as a group member as well. Can I add myself to the list on the google doc?
Dave deBronkart (Aug 14 2019 at 02:54):
@Ricky Sahu my impression from a few months here is that anyone (as in EVEN THE GENERAL PUBLIC) can work on anything, so go right ahead and put your name in as a worker-bee, and hang out here too.
The thing that requires membership is VOTING on stuff. Other than that, dive in! (I think :-))
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 15 2019 at 01:26):
@Ricky Sahu We welcome all registered HL7 members to add their info to the google doc.
Dave deBronkart (Aug 18 2019 at 16:12):
@Lloyd McKenzie clearly my advice to Ricky was off - not "the general public can work on anything." I know somewhere this summer someone credible in HL7 (plural, I think) told me "the only thing that requires membership is voting." If I read your Aug 14 note correctly, membership is also required for participating in a workgroup, yes?
Anything else I should know about the matter?
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 20 2019 at 16:46):
Anyone can work on anything. I.e. you don't need to be a member to participate - come to calls, show up at working group meetings. However, to sign the petition for a new work group, you need to be an active member. (You also need to be an active member to serve as co-chair).
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
