Stream: fhir/infrastructure-wg
Topic: Agenda item Monday's July 27 Call
Eric Haas (Jul 20 2020 at 20:13):
if possible followup from this week on conformance expectation extension: J#28103
Eric Haas (Jul 27 2020 at 18:26):
also IG proposal for subscription backport IG
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2020 at 19:49):
http://hl7.org/fhir/codesystem-operation-lookup.html
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:17):
Was $lookup on the agenda? I tried to join just before you posted that and got "Waiting for the host to start this meeting".
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2020 at 20:21):
it was on the agenda. We agree that this page: http://hl7.org/fhir/operation-codesystem-lookup.html has a wrong maturity level and standards status and it should be reconciled with http://hl7.org/fhir/codesystem-operation-lookup.html
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:24):
Well, I agree with that. I assume the call ended before the top of the hour? I probably just missed it.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2020 at 20:24):
the call has changed to use zoom - you will have to update your calendar entry
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:24):
I was using Zoom.
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:25):
The Zoom link from the HL7 calendar
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2020 at 20:25):
then I don't know what happened, but we did stop on the hour
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:25):
ok
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:25):
How did we end up with a duplicate page?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2020 at 20:29):
it's not a duplicate page. There's the definition of the operation, which is at http://hl7.org/fhir/codesystem-operation-lookup.html. Then there's the actual formal definition as an OperationDefinition resource, which is http://hl7.org/fhir/operation-codesystem-lookup.html. This is the case for every operation. I will have to consider what the spec is trying to do there
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:31):
Right. I looked at that further and hadn't seen all of the context. They do look rather duplicative at first glance (out of context). So why wouldn't Vocab be the place to address this?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2020 at 20:43):
because the issue wasn't about the operation itself, it was about the technical infrastructure supporting it's definition
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2020 at 20:44):
i.e. we didn't discuss what the status of the operation itself was; had we needed to do that, that discussion would have belonged at vocab
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:46):
I missed the discussion and not a big deal, but "maturity level and standards status" sounds like typical stuff that the owning WG deals with. So I think I'm still missing the rationale for dealing with it in FHIR-I.
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:47):
Were there other technical infrastructure issues?
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2020 at 20:47):
because the question isn't 'what is the status of the operation" (or "what should it be") but "what are we doing with the extension that defines the status?", and "why aren't both pages consistent with each other?"
Rob Hausam (Jul 27 2020 at 20:51):
I think what you are saying is that the reason that both pages aren't consistent with each other is because the infrastructure isn't doing the right thing with the extension that defines the status - and if that's the case, then I get it. Just trying to be clear on the rationale.
Grahame Grieve (Jul 27 2020 at 20:57):
yes that's correct
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
