This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Talk:HTC Position document: MIF, Repositories & HL7 Work practices"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | =Issue with section entitled "MIF"= | ||
I fear there is a '''grievous''' mis-match between my understanding of MIF, and what is documented in the section, entitled '''MIF'''. Specifically, it says: | I fear there is a '''grievous''' mis-match between my understanding of MIF, and what is documented in the section, entitled '''MIF'''. Specifically, it says: | ||
| Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
*"MIF document should be opaque to all but the actual HL7 internal tool developers" - Again, wrong. It should be used by ALL who are developing tools and aides to facilitate HL7, regardelss of whether or not they are "internal" | *"MIF document should be opaque to all but the actual HL7 internal tool developers" - Again, wrong. It should be used by ALL who are developing tools and aides to facilitate HL7, regardelss of whether or not they are "internal" | ||
| − | *"The HL7 internal tool developers should provide tools and/or export facilities to other formats for all other uses of HL7 Model definitions" - Again - "internal | + | *"The HL7 internal tool developers should provide tools and/or export facilities to other formats for all other uses of HL7 Model definitions" - Again - "internal developers" can never HOPE to finish this! We need OUTSIDE developers (like Eclipse) too. |
| − | With your permission, I will edit the first two paragraphs to "open up" the MIF beyond "internal developers". [[User:Gwbeeler|Woody]] 15:15, 11 December 2006 (CST) | + | *"HL7 should position the MIF as an internal pre-publication format used to support HL7 development and publication processes" -- Again, it is '''NOT just prepublication'''. We have committed to asserting that the MIF-structured results '''are the NORMATIVE release''' of our specifications (in future.) And it is done to also '''support implementation''' |
| + | |||
| + | *"HL7 should be committed to developing alternative standards-based approaches" -- This one is touchier, but the Tooling Committe long afgo realized HL7 could '''not''' devfelop alternative standards-based approaches, but that we would encourage others (outside of, in collaboration with) HL7 to develop such approaches. | ||
| + | |||
| + | With your permission, I will edit the first two paragraphs and the final paragraph to "open up" the MIF beyond "internal developers". [[User:Gwbeeler|Woody]] 15:15, 11 December 2006 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 21:22, 11 December 2006
Issue with section entitled "MIF"
I fear there is a grievous mis-match between my understanding of MIF, and what is documented in the section, entitled MIF. Specifically, it says:
- "MIF is designed for internal HL7 use." -- NO, it was designed as the tool interchange format, REGARDLESS of whether those uses were "internal" to HL7, or used by an implementer. Otherwise, the NHS would have no use for MIF!!!
- "MIF document should be opaque to all but the actual HL7 internal tool developers" - Again, wrong. It should be used by ALL who are developing tools and aides to facilitate HL7, regardelss of whether or not they are "internal"
- "The HL7 internal tool developers should provide tools and/or export facilities to other formats for all other uses of HL7 Model definitions" - Again - "internal developers" can never HOPE to finish this! We need OUTSIDE developers (like Eclipse) too.
- "HL7 should position the MIF as an internal pre-publication format used to support HL7 development and publication processes" -- Again, it is NOT just prepublication. We have committed to asserting that the MIF-structured results are the NORMATIVE release of our specifications (in future.) And it is done to also support implementation
- "HL7 should be committed to developing alternative standards-based approaches" -- This one is touchier, but the Tooling Committe long afgo realized HL7 could not devfelop alternative standards-based approaches, but that we would encourage others (outside of, in collaboration with) HL7 to develop such approaches.
With your permission, I will edit the first two paragraphs and the final paragraph to "open up" the MIF beyond "internal developers". Woody 15:15, 11 December 2006 (CST)
