Stream: fhir/infrastructure-wg
Topic: Resource Maturity
Grahame Grieve (Dec 13 2018 at 09:41):
I would like to revisit the question of the maturity of FHIR-I resources. I believe that the we should make the following changes:
- GraphDefinition - FMM = 1
- Group - FMM = 3
- ImplementationGUide FMM = 2
- List - FMM = 3
- NamingSystem - FMM = 2
- StructureMap - FMM = 1
- TestReport - FMM = 1
Michel Rutten (Dec 13 2018 at 10:00):
StructureMap is currently at maturity level 2. Why revert back to level 1?
Grahame Grieve (Dec 13 2018 at 10:00):
because o dont think it meets the criteria for 2
Michel Rutten (Dec 13 2018 at 10:02):
OK thx, just wondering.
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 13 2018 at 15:05):
Have we done all the QA for Group and List? Have we had connectathon-equivalent testing on NamingSystem?
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 13 2018 at 15:06):
And were the candidate FMM 1 resources balloted as draft or STU?
Grahame Grieve (Dec 13 2018 at 20:00):
Trial Use
Grahame Grieve (Dec 13 2018 at 20:01):
probably haven't done all the QA for Group and List.
Grahame Grieve (Dec 13 2018 at 20:43):
TestReport must remain at 0. (not FMG approved - I don't know why)
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 13 2018 at 20:54):
We talked about it. You weren't clear on whether there was any use of it, I thought.
Grahame Grieve (Dec 13 2018 at 20:55):
there hasn't been much use at all, that's true. is that a reason for FMG to hold it back from being called ready for use?
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 13 2018 at 20:56):
The question for the FMG is "Do we need a resource for this purpose". Given the lack of any use to date, the answer to the question wasn't clear enough to say "yes".
Grahame Grieve (Dec 13 2018 at 21:01):
there's a certain amount of circularity there. I think it would be really good if FMG commentary was written down somewhere
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 13 2018 at 21:03):
It's in the minutes. We put notes in the proposals occasionally.
With some resources, we know there's a need because the data's already shared. In this case, the need wasn't as clear. The draft resources has been around for 3+ years. If no-one's using it, that raises the question of whether it's needed. (And I believe you were the one who was questioning the need...)
Grahame Grieve (Dec 13 2018 at 21:04):
I think that there should be a slot in the pending resources for FMG not just the minutes
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 13 2018 at 21:05):
There is an FMG notes section at the bottom
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 13 2018 at 21:05):
But stuff only goes there if we tell Anne to put it there...
Grahame Grieve (Dec 13 2018 at 23:56):
so:
- GraphDefinition - FMM = 1
- ImplementationGuide FMM = 2
- NamingSystem - FMM = 2
- StructureMap - FMM = 1
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 14 2018 at 00:38):
NamingSystem has been tested?
Grahame Grieve (Dec 14 2018 at 00:40):
I think it has in several affiliate contexts. But I guess that what I know about fails "These interoperability results must have been reported to and accepted by the FMG"
Grahame Grieve (Dec 14 2018 at 20:15):
can we at least up GraphDefinition to FMM = 1? @Lloyd McKenzie @Rick Geimer @Ewout Kramer @Josh Mandel
Josh Mandel (Dec 14 2018 at 20:44):
Is it "substantially complete and ready for implementation"? It's hard for me to assess; Grahame, is there some implementation experience with it?
Josh Mandel (Dec 14 2018 at 20:45):
Most discussion here on Zulip (I just did a quick search) seems to be people expressing uncertainty about whether/how it would address their use case.
Grahame Grieve (Dec 14 2018 at 20:53):
I have implemented it myself in my server. I agree that's what most of the discussion is. But I think we're at the point of saying 'we think it's ready for people to implement it and tell us what we think' and as for completeness: the described scope is implemented in the resource. We're not claiming that the scope is correct and well verified, or that the technical solution is well validated, just that it does cover the scope
Josh Mandel (Dec 14 2018 at 22:46):
I don't feel strongly. If you think that keeping it at status zero would prevent the kind of feedback you need, then I'm happy to bump it up.
Grahame Grieve (Dec 14 2018 at 22:49):
Lloyd approves too. I am bumping it up
Ewout Kramer (Dec 17 2018 at 14:53):
I think it's fair to bump it too - I feel it's beyond draft now.
Rick Geimer (Dec 21 2018 at 06:52):
A bit late to the party here, but I too agree we can bump it.
Danielle Friend (Jan 14 2019 at 18:01):
@Ewout Kramer is List moving WGs? Or will FHIR-I be deciding on it's next maturity level? I'd like to suggest it move to FMM3 or 4 - we have production support for it.
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 14 2019 at 21:31):
We're hoping to move Group (to PA). We talked about moving List, but it has a wide variety of uses and the only other logical target is PC who has a fair bit on their plate, so we'll probably keep it. Do intend to push it to 3 or 4. Thanks for sharing your use
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
