Stream: fhir/infrastructure-wg
Topic: review of change name or messing with status
Eric Haas (May 01 2019 at 17:41):
I've working in US Core and PC has made a lot of outlying changes. naming elements in a "semantically pure
" and painful way and creating required codeableconcept status. This is painful for me and must be for all developers. What review process exists to monitor WG decision to rename elements or change types after the resource gos beyond a certain FMM ( 2 imo) and overrule if deemed to painful for implement.
Eric Haas (May 01 2019 at 17:44):
PS we at OO have been equally guilty btw. changing names especially...
Lloyd McKenzie (May 01 2019 at 18:47):
The normal level of requiring review is FMM4+ That requires consultation with the implementation community. Below that, it's up to the WG how much consultation they do. (We should be pushing for more resources to be at the FMM4+ level...)
Josh Mandel (May 01 2019 at 21:11):
I'm with you on this, Eric; if we define the content we should describe how to expose it for search, and then perhaps give a hint about how typical (or for which use cases it's typical) it would be to support specific search parameters.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
