Stream: fhir/infrastructure-wg
Topic: Last minute breaking tasks
Grahame Grieve (Aug 17 2018 at 20:59):
looking at GF#17688 , I think it would be good to qualify this statement:
Is-Modifier elements SHALL be represented in the narrative summary of the resource.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 17 2018 at 20:59):
anyone agree?
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 17 2018 at 21:05):
Qualify it how?
Grahame Grieve (Aug 17 2018 at 21:05):
"When narrative is present", for a start. Maybe also when narrative is generated
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 17 2018 at 22:57):
It's a SHOULD for non-generated narrative too.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 17 2018 at 22:58):
that's starting to get away from clarification.
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 17 2018 at 23:02):
The base statement is saying "always". If we're going to step away from that, we should do so as minimally as possible.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 18 2018 at 02:23):
ok, how do we close this out.... about 24 hours left...
Lloyd McKenzie (Aug 18 2018 at 02:29):
Well, we can't make it a SHALL if it's human-entered, so loosening to SHOULD is reasonable there. And we allow for the possibility of no narrative, so excluding that is reasonable too. I think both of those qualifications are reasonable editorial clarifications of the original motion.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 18 2018 at 02:38):
well, there's 2 possibilities: one is a substantiative change, the other, a technical clarification:
1. If a narrative summary is present, and the status is generated, Is-Modifier elements SHALL be represented in the narrative summary of the resource. If Narrative is present with some other status Is-modifier elements SHOULD be represented.
2. If a narrative summary is present, Is-Modifier elements SHOULD be represented in the narrative summary of the resource.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 18 2018 at 02:39):
committed #1 for review.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
