Stream: fhir/infrastructure-wg
Topic: FHIR-I Wed Q1
Michael Donnelly (Oct 03 2018 at 13:17):
Discuss: https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=18296&start=0
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 13:47):
Christiaan Knaap/Richard Ettema: 5-0-0
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 13:50):
https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=18300&start=0
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 14:00):
@Lloyd McKenzie we're looking at this question of "patch" in transaction order, and since http.html is normative content, I guess our hands are tied and we won't be able to make patch (and head) work in transactions for r4?
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 03 2018 at 14:06):
Well we could, but we'd have to take it back to ballot. Terminology is definitely going back to ballot. This change should be non-controversial. @Grahame Grieve, thoughts?
Ewout Kramer (Oct 03 2018 at 14:09):
Can't we have a separate section on patch in transaction and mark it STU? I am afraid you told me we can't, but I'll try anyway ;-)
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 14:11):
Christiaan Knaap/Richard Ettema: 5-0-0
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 14:12):
Grahame documented the theory at https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=17806&start=0 that the requested change in https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=18300 is actually NOT substantive, so we went with that.
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 14:12):
Our disposition:
Since "patch" semantics are already equivalent to "put" semantics, we can update the spec to list "PUT" and "PATCH" on the same line in the transaction ordering. Similarly, http.html already says "Anywhere that a GET request can be used, a HEAD request is also allowed". So we should update the transaction ordering list to clarify (without it being a substantive change):
1. Process any DELETE interactions
2. Process any POST interactions
3. Process any PUT or PATCH interactions
4. Process any GET or HEAD interactions
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 14:15):
Discuss: https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=17806&start=0
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 03 2018 at 14:16):
STU vs. Normative doesn't impact "is this subsantive and therefore requires another vote"
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 14:16):
Christiaan Knaap/Richard Ettema: 4-0-1
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 14:17):
STU vs. Normative doesn't impact "is this subsantive and therefore requires another vote"
We don't understand this comment. The change isn't substantive, as far as we can tell (irrespective of STU vs Normative distinctions).
Michael Donnelly (Oct 03 2018 at 14:18):
https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=17746&start=0
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 03 2018 at 14:22):
Adding a rule that says when certain content needs to be processed is substantive. Grahame's argument is that the rule was already implicit and we're just making it explicit. If we think that flies, we can get away with it I guess - particularly given that this should not be a controversial addition to the spec.
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 14:25):
Michael Donnelly/Michel Rutten: 5-0-0
Josh Mandel (Oct 03 2018 at 14:25):
Grahame's argument is that the rule was already implicit and we're just making it explicit.
Yes, we agree. Flies for us!
Grahame Grieve (Oct 03 2018 at 14:26):
Great
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
