Stream: IPS
Topic: IPS ballot plans
Isaac Vetter (Feb 07 2022 at 18:15):
Hi IPS folk!
My impression is that there are future, necessary changes/enhancements to the FHIR IPS IG. What's the currently planned next ballot date for the FHIR IPS IG? (This PSS is a bit out of date).
Rob Hausam (Feb 07 2022 at 18:59):
What we have decided for now is that we will publish the FHIR IPS IG first. Then at some (as yet undecided) point afterward we will go for another ballot round. I expect that could be in early (Jan or May) 2023 - but again we haven't really decided or even discussed that very much yet. If other considerations are brought forward that certainly might alter that very rough estimate.
Isaac Vetter (Feb 07 2022 at 19:12):
Thanks, Rob! Isn't this: http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/ips/STU1, the published version of the IPS IG? I'm assuming that http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/ips/STU1 was the result of STU 1 Ballot 3 resolution. Is this not the case?
Isaac Vetter (Feb 07 2022 at 19:19):
More practically, the changes in current -- significant changes in the use of MS, declaring $summary/$docref, still need to be balloted, so the earliest they'd be published by HL7 is in summer of 23? But there's no specific project or timeline yet. Is this correct? (or are these changes being proposed during resolution?)
Rob Hausam (Feb 08 2022 at 22:54):
@Isaac Vetter Yes, the current published IPS version was the result of the STU 1 Ballot 3 resolution. The changes that have need made since then have been based on the feedback from IPS testing and the various IPS implementation efforts and the additional issues identified from that. We've discussed the strategy on this quite a bit and have vetted our available options (with the GOM, etc.), and it turns out that how to manage this falls into somewhat of a grey zone, with two acceptable options that can be taken. We could (1) either take the changes made subsequent to our initial STU 1 publication back to ballot now, or (2) we could incorporate and publish the changes in an STU update and then go back to ballot at a later time (likely when we update the IPS IG for FHIR R5). Where we've landed in that discussion is to take the #2 approach and move to an updated publication first. That may not necessarily be the "traditional" approach, but in this case we have (so far) agreed that it will be the best way forward for the IPS community and our current and anticipated IPS implementation efforts. Does that make sense?
@John D'Amore, any additional comments?
John D'Amore (Feb 09 2022 at 13:35):
Agree with what you stated @Rob Hausam . This was discussed and decided as the plan back in September/October (https://confluence.hl7.org/display/PC/IPS+2021-10-20). The changes to Must Support are one of the current open issue so I think the feedback that has been provided in the past week in IPS Stream will be helpful for that.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
