This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "DoF 2018-06-13 Meeting"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
John rhoads (talk | contribs) m (e) |
John rhoads (talk | contribs) m (a) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| − | Agenda: | + | Agenda: |
| + | |||
| + | * Discussion of FHIR Device Instance - Device Kind meeting, O & O and DEV, 2018-06-12 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Discussion Notes: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Logical model presented in 2018-06-12 meeting | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Option 1 do not split Device resource into Device Instance and Device Kind | ||
| + | |||
| + | * In Option 2 split was moved and carried in 2018-06-12 meeting with most DEV members abstaining | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Discussion of other similar divisions in FHIR | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Discussion of predominance of instance information in DEV use cases | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Consensus in group was that the split was workable in DEV use cases but strong resistance to separate Device Kind being mandatory in all cases, particularly device communications cases where Kind information plays quite a minor role | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Motion by Reinhold, seconded by Faughn, with friendly amendment to rephrase by Courville accepted by proposer. Motion as rephrased "We want to be able to use Device by itself" was passed 8-0-0 | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Discussion of how this could be achieved by retaining a small number of Kind fields as optional in Device, to be profiled in when needed in DEV, and profiled out in other uses where a separate Device Kind resource is needed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Consensus was that though the objections to the duplication of fields are clearly understood, other resources in FHIR overlap in field content in a similar way when wide variation between use cases make it desirable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Additional meetings with O&O are expected and will continue this discussion. | ||
Next meeting: [[DoF PoCD 2018-06-20]] | Next meeting: [[DoF PoCD 2018-06-20]] | ||
Revision as of 21:36, 14 June 2018
Devices on FHIR Meeting 2018-06-13
Devices on FHIR Project of HL7 Health Care Devices WG
Attendance:
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| John Dyer | Draeger |
| George Dixon | Allscripts |
| Brian Reinhold | LNI |
| Stefan Karl | Philips |
| Michael Faughn | Prometheus Computing / NIST |
| Koichiro Matsumoto | Nihon Kohden |
| Chris Courville | Epic |
| Paul Schluter | CMI |
| Ana Kostadinova | Philips |
Presiding Co-Chair: John Rhoads, Philips
Agenda:
- Discussion of FHIR Device Instance - Device Kind meeting, O & O and DEV, 2018-06-12
Discussion Notes:
- Logical model presented in 2018-06-12 meeting
- Option 1 do not split Device resource into Device Instance and Device Kind
- In Option 2 split was moved and carried in 2018-06-12 meeting with most DEV members abstaining
- Discussion of other similar divisions in FHIR
- Discussion of predominance of instance information in DEV use cases
- Consensus in group was that the split was workable in DEV use cases but strong resistance to separate Device Kind being mandatory in all cases, particularly device communications cases where Kind information plays quite a minor role
- Motion by Reinhold, seconded by Faughn, with friendly amendment to rephrase by Courville accepted by proposer. Motion as rephrased "We want to be able to use Device by itself" was passed 8-0-0
- Discussion of how this could be achieved by retaining a small number of Kind fields as optional in Device, to be profiled in when needed in DEV, and profiled out in other uses where a separate Device Kind resource is needed.
- Consensus was that though the objections to the duplication of fields are clearly understood, other resources in FHIR overlap in field content in a similar way when wide variation between use cases make it desirable.
- Additional meetings with O&O are expected and will continue this discussion.
Next meeting: DoF PoCD 2018-06-20
