Minutes - FHIR Validation Group 2021-04-29
Thursday, 04th February 2021, 10:00 CET
- Publication of HL7 and eHealth ImplementationGuides
- Validation and updates to existing resources
- Robin Bosman
- Anne Nerenhausen
- José Costa Teixeira
- Félix de Tavernier
- Jean-Michel Polfliet
- Hanne Vuegen
- Karlien Erauw
Publication of HL7 and eHealth ImplementationGuides
We have 2 paths and different statuses of the profiles. We should publish this consistently for implementers to always know what is available.
HL7 Belgium and eHealth will publish such a list of profiles:
- HL7 Belgium will publish the standards that are in progress, HL7 published, and the published federal profiles (linking to the eHealth publication)
- eHealth will choose, but will likely publish only the Federal profiles
This should be done in a way to maintain a single coherent list. To do this, we will capture the "source" of the publication in a github repository, as well as the representations (html table, etc). eHealth will publish only the Federal standards from this list, HL7 Belgium will publish the rest of the content.
Validation and updates to existing resources
- AllergyIntolerance: there are double bindings on exposureRoute
- Organization - identifier has a ssin slice, VAZG (and José) ask if this is a good idea to have
1. someone creates a Change Request * Discussion at a Validation WG meeting
- Email to the WG
- This means we should create email addresses for each WG <wg>@hl7belgium.org
- Github Issue (only for the WG members, or during the ballot phase)
- At any moment, we should have a single list of the change Requests that have been made
- We should not leave the space for anyone to make any commnent any time, if this is already an approved publication. In that case we should limit the input of CRs to either an email or a participation in the Validation WG meeting
2. If the Change Request is sent to the Validation WG, the Validation WG refers to the technical WG to address the issue (or creates a WG for this)
3. The technical WG analyses the issue and impact
4. The technical WG implements the change in the continuous build version of the IG. It documents the change AND the expected impact for the relevant stakeholders. * for example some change may require changes to the Access Matrix
5. The publication is added to a ballot for public comment. Stakeholders can assess if the expected impact is OK.
6. The WGSE as a gatekeeper if this is a federal standard
Conclusion: we will start in the Working Group Infrastructure, with the following changes (José will add them to the backlog somehow)
- BeOrganization - SSIN slice needed?
- BeAllergyIntolerance - Double binding on exposureRoute (Just for validation)
- HCParty - there is a mismatch between the values used in JWT and the CD_HCPARTY valueset. This should be resolved (or mapped).
- Should we keep the list? Should we add/map the JWT values? Should we look at COBRHA
We'll send the agenda out in advance.