User:Michael donnelly

Monday Q1

Chair: Ewout Kramer

Attendance sheet: http://bit.ly/fhiri (to be turned into a PDF after meeting)

Tracker Items

• 16165, 16127, 17001, 17002 - Versioning discussion; prepared motions for voting Wednesday

Prepared MOTION for wed may 16 Q2: "Document the MIME-type parameter as a way to describe the version of the resource in the MIME package. Grahame Grieve/Chris Grenz: 37-0-0"

Straw poll about using "Meta.fhirVersion" versus using "Meta.profile": 8 in favor of "fhirVersion", about 18 for a <profile> based approach.

Below is the example we discussed:

  Content-type: application/fhir+xml;fhirVersion=3.0

<Patient fhir-version="3.0" xmlns="hl7.org/fhir">
     <meta>
       <profile value="http://hl7.org/fhir/DSTU2/StructureDefinition/Patient" />
       <profile value="http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/Patient|1.0" /> 
       <!-- assuming no breaking change to patient in 4.0....  --> 
       <profile value="http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/Patient|4.0" />
       <profile value="http://hl7.nz/fhir/StructureDefinition/OurNationalPatient|1.2.1" /> 
       <fhirVersion value="3.0" />
     </meta>
     <!-- more interesting stuff about patient-->
   </Patient>

  {
   "resourceType" : "Patient",
   "fhir-version" : "3.0",
   "status"...
  }