Stream: fhir/infrastructure-wg
Topic: Hybrid IG
Josh Mandel (Oct 25 2021 at 20:28):
@Patrick Murta @Lloyd McKenzie
I see a conflict between:
vs
image.png (from the shared gdoc)
Josh Mandel (Oct 25 2021 at 20:29):
I believe this did start life outside of HL7, yes?
Josh Mandel (Oct 25 2021 at 20:30):
I also need a value for:
Josh Mandel (Oct 25 2021 at 20:32):
I also need a value for:
The word doc doesn't include a value, and the prefilled value ("Prior Ballot Reconciliation completed") does not seem accurate to me.
Josh Mandel (Oct 25 2021 at 20:33):
The following description is too long at 680 chars; needs to be 500 or less:
As the range of healthcare actors using FHIR has grown, so has the need to route exchanges across intermediaries such as clearinghouses, HIEs, national networks, and others. Stakeholders use intermediaries for technical, operational and business reasons, and the desire to utilize intermediaries is expected to continue as RESTful FHIR API integration evolves. For example, networks including HIEs and national networks have emerged as brokering intermediaries for document access/exchange, e-prescribing and other purposes, and may also engage in FHIR-based interoperability. This implementation guide establishes a foundation supporting such intermediary-facilitated exchanges.
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 25 2021 at 21:25):
If the original PSS said 'external', then I guess we're external
Publishing facilitator should be @Patrick Murta unless he nominates a different victim.
I think we're pending content, but I generally leave the ballot readiness alone.
Josh Mandel (Oct 26 2021 at 01:24):
OK -- @Patrick Murta will you @-mention me here when you've had a chance to review these items and propose any updates? I want to make sure I don't lose track.
Frank McKinney (Oct 26 2021 at 15:36):
Hi @Josh Mandel , @Patrick Murta . I'm helping Patrick out on this. I think we can shorten the description to this...
As the range of healthcare actors using FHIR has grown, so has the need to route exchanges across intermediaries such as clearinghouses, HIEs, national networks, and others. Stakeholders use intermediaries for technical, operational and business reasons, and the desire to utilize intermediaries is expected to continue as RESTful FHIR API integration evolves. This implementation guide establishes a foundation supporting such intermediary-facilitated exchanges.
Frank McKinney (Oct 26 2021 at 15:45):
@Josh Mandel , @Patrick Murta , @Lloyd McKenzie Re. the Ballot Readiness Status, the guide hasn't been balloted before, so you're right that the current value doesn't make sense. The current status is that the IG is nearing completion and builds without errors on build.fhir.org. We're on track to meet the final content deadline. Does that fit Pending Content as Lloyd suggested?
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 26 2021 at 15:47):
Who should be listed as the publishing facilitator?
Josh Mandel (Oct 26 2021 at 15:53):
Re: statues, I don't see how that's Pending given that no reconciliation has occurred
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 26 2021 at 19:05):
No reconciliation is necessary, so all reconciliation that's necessary has occurred. (I agree the label sucks, but that's the only way we can interpret it.)
Patrick Murta (Oct 27 2021 at 11:57):
@Josh Mandel , @Lloyd McKenzie , lets make Frank McKinney the publishing facilitator.
Regarding the reduced content size, can we go with this?
As the spectrum of healthcare actors using FHIR has grown and will continue to, we need to account for exchange across intermediaries such as clearinghouses, HIEs, national networks, and others. Stakeholders use intermediaries for technical, operational and business reasons, and the desire to utilize intermediaries is expected to continue as RESTful FHIR API integration evolves. This implementation guide establishes a foundation supporting such intermediary-facilitated exchanges.
Josh Mandel (Oct 27 2021 at 14:59):
OK, I'm trying to submit with these changes in place but I get:
Josh Mandel (Oct 27 2021 at 15:00):
This is owing to:
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 27 2021 at 15:01):
This will probably take an email chain to resolve. FAST started outside HL7, but it's now an HL7 accelerator, so not clear if "external organization" agreement is still relevant. Suggest including Lynn, Austin and KarenVan.
Josh Mandel (Oct 27 2021 at 15:01):
I was able to click through though -- so @Patrick Murta @Frank McKinney just want to make sure you're tracking this with Karen.
Josh Mandel (Oct 27 2021 at 15:02):
Here's what's submitted Notification-of-Intent-to-Ballot-Form-January-2022-Ballot-Cycle.pdf
Frank McKinney (Oct 27 2021 at 15:12):
Thanks @Josh Mandel , @Lloyd McKenzie , @Patrick Murta.
I just noticed a note from Melva at the bottom of the PSS that indicates that the TSC discussed the external/internal nature of this effortand it was determined to be internal...
2021-03-29: TSC External Review complete - no external review is required as content is being developed within FHIR-i
FAST Exchange Metadata Using RESTful Headers
The page at that link contains meeting minutes that include this:
Decision. Move by Austin - seconded by Wayne to accept assertion that this FHIR IG is HL7 developed content and no further review is required. 3-0-0 Carried
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 27 2021 at 15:27):
Maybe pass that on to Lynn and Melva so they know when they're evaluating the NIB.
Frank McKinney (Oct 27 2021 at 15:45):
Will do, Lloyd
Frank McKinney (Oct 27 2021 at 17:39):
Hi @Lloyd McKenzie , @Josh Mandel , @Patrick Murta , @Melva Peters . Bringing in Melva's response to the "external content" thread above (from email):
Melva: I think you can update the PSS with a clarification and then get FHIR-I to approve. I don’t think it needs to go back through the approval cycle since this is just a clarification.
Would this make sense?...
- I update the PSS now to reflect that external content isn't involved
- Josh updates the NIB now to internal, based on Melva's clarification
- FHIR-I approves the PSS clarification in an upcoming WG call
Frank McKinney (Oct 27 2021 at 17:41):
A consideration is that this doesn't delay the NIB - given the Oct 31 deadline...
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 27 2021 at 17:52):
I don't think you need any new approval from FHIR-I
Frank McKinney (Oct 27 2021 at 18:18):
I adjusted the PSS to "Content externally developed = No" and added a comment referencing Melva's direction
Frank McKinney (Oct 28 2021 at 16:49):
Hi @Josh Mandel . Given Melva's direction that the PSS should be updated to "external content = no" (which I did yesterday), could you update the NIB to show Internally/Externally Developed as internal? Thx!
Josh Mandel (Oct 28 2021 at 16:53):
Updated; see attached.
Notification-of-Intent-to-Ballot-Form-January-2022-Ballot-Cycle.pdf
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
