This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "FHIR Infrastructure Minutes WGM 201605"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{subst::FHIR Infrastructure Template for Agenda-Minutes}}")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
 
+
[[Category:2016 FHIR Infrastructure Minutes]]
−
<!--
 
−
  EDITORS - When converting the content from Agenda to minutes:
 
−
  1) Delete the string "|Agenda Template" from   
 
−
        [[Category:2016 FHIR Infrastructure Minutes|Agenda Template]] below
 
−
  2) Delete the Logistics template reference
 
−
        {{:FHIR Infrastructure Conference Call Logistics}}  below
 
−
-->[[Category:2016 FHIR Infrastructure Minutes|Agenda Template]]
 
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
 
=FHIR Infrastructure Conference Call 3:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)=
 
=FHIR Infrastructure Conference Call 3:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)=
−
{{:FHIR Infrastructure Conference Call Logistics}}
 
 
[[:Category:2016 FHIR Infrastructure Minutes|Return to FHIR Infrastructure Minutes]]
 
[[:Category:2016 FHIR Infrastructure Minutes|Return to FHIR Infrastructure Minutes]]
 
==Agenda==
 
==Agenda==
−
*Approve [[FHIR Infrastructure_Minutes_CC_yyyymmdd| Minutes Prior Meeting on mm/dd]]
+
*Mon Q1 - FHIR Tracker items
 +
*Mon Q2 - FHIR Tracker items
 +
*Mon Q3 - FHIR Workflow
 +
*Mon Q4 - FHIR Workflow
  
 
==Attendees==
 
==Attendees==
−
*??? (chair)
+
See [| Attendee List]
−
*
+
 
 +
*Chair/Scribe for Q1/Q2: Ewout
 +
*Chair/Scribe for Q3/Q4: Lloyd
 +
 
 +
==Mon Q1/Q2==
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=9864 9864]
 +
* Discussion of use case for reverse chaining queries; syntax; and our process for adding new features to the search API. Decision: some server developers will try this out, seek input from client developers, and see what the experience shows.
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=9814 9814]
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=9168 9168]
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=9965 9965]
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=9108 9108]
 +
* [http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=9801 9801]
  
−
==Agenda Item 1==
+
==Mon Q3/Q4==
−
Goes here
+
* Lloyd presented the outcomes of the FHIR Workflow task force to date
 +
** See [[File:FHIR_Workflow.pptx]]
  
−
==Agenda Item 1==
+
*Discussion:
−
Goes here
+
** Keith: Rename "category" to "stage" when we're talking about requests
 +
** Why are we combining proposal/plan/order?
 +
** Not thrilled with xxxRequest as a name when it's not actually the request, it's the authorization
 +
*** Can't call it xxxAuthorization because plans and proposals aren't really authorizations.  Open to a better name, but haven't come up with one.  Feel free to suggest
 +
** Why do we need a tag?
 +
*** Tags are needed to distinguish from request instances that are there as supporting information, background, no-longer actionable from those that are actionable?
 +
** Why not tag the ones that aren't actionable?
 +
*** The safest thing is for instances to be non-actionable.  Lots of instances will be passed around, situation where they need to be actionable is limited.
 +
** Will the simple "tag-based" approach be considered as valid as using Task?
 +
*** Yes.  All 4 mechanisms are valid
 +
** Will we define standard operations and messages for doing this?
 +
*** Maybe - we haven't really looked at those yet
 +
** We will need lots of examples
 +
*** Yes we will.  Supplying use-cases and assisting would be appreciated
 +
**Why is reason 0..1 instead of 0..*?
 +
***Could increase.  Most existing models use 0..1 - what's 80% for your resource?
 +
**"failed" isn't an ideal status name.  Perhaps "aborted"?
 +
**Need to capture reason for statuses other than failure
 +
** Where are things with combining Protocol & Orderset?
 +
*** CDS is evaluating it.  Lloyd & Bryn think it's a good idea
  
 +
Worked through slides 5-7 and, after discussion, had no objections other than the ones discussed/addressed above.
  
 
==Adjournment==
 
==Adjournment==

Revision as of 02:25, 11 May 2016


FHIR Infrastructure Conference Call 3:00PM Eastern Time (Date above)

Return to FHIR Infrastructure Minutes

Agenda

  • Mon Q1 - FHIR Tracker items
  • Mon Q2 - FHIR Tracker items
  • Mon Q3 - FHIR Workflow
  • Mon Q4 - FHIR Workflow

Attendees

See [| Attendee List]

  • Chair/Scribe for Q1/Q2: Ewout
  • Chair/Scribe for Q3/Q4: Lloyd

Mon Q1/Q2

  • 9864
  • Discussion of use case for reverse chaining queries; syntax; and our process for adding new features to the search API. Decision: some server developers will try this out, seek input from client developers, and see what the experience shows.
  • 9814
  • 9168
  • 9965
  • 9108
  • 9801

Mon Q3/Q4

  • Discussion:
    • Keith: Rename "category" to "stage" when we're talking about requests
    • Why are we combining proposal/plan/order?
    • Not thrilled with xxxRequest as a name when it's not actually the request, it's the authorization
      • Can't call it xxxAuthorization because plans and proposals aren't really authorizations. Open to a better name, but haven't come up with one. Feel free to suggest
    • Why do we need a tag?
      • Tags are needed to distinguish from request instances that are there as supporting information, background, no-longer actionable from those that are actionable?
    • Why not tag the ones that aren't actionable?
      • The safest thing is for instances to be non-actionable. Lots of instances will be passed around, situation where they need to be actionable is limited.
    • Will the simple "tag-based" approach be considered as valid as using Task?
      • Yes. All 4 mechanisms are valid
    • Will we define standard operations and messages for doing this?
      • Maybe - we haven't really looked at those yet
    • We will need lots of examples
      • Yes we will. Supplying use-cases and assisting would be appreciated
    • Why is reason 0..1 instead of 0..*?
      • Could increase. Most existing models use 0..1 - what's 80% for your resource?
    • "failed" isn't an ideal status name. Perhaps "aborted"?
    • Need to capture reason for statuses other than failure
    • Where are things with combining Protocol & Orderset?
      • CDS is evaluating it. Lloyd & Bryn think it's a good idea

Worked through slides 5-7 and, after discussion, had no objections other than the ones discussed/addressed above.

Adjournment

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=FHIR_Infrastructure_Minutes_WGM_201605&oldid=119888"