Minutes - FHIR Validation Group 2022-05-12

From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
Revision as of 09:04, 12 May 2022 by Costateixeira (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Thursday, 12th May 2022, 10:00 CET = Agenda = * Reschedule of the meeting on the 26th May (Bank holiday): We can't find an ideal schedule and we meet on the 9th of June. * AC...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Thursday, 12th May 2022, 10:00 CET

Agenda

  • Reschedule of the meeting on the 26th May (Bank holiday): We can't find an ideal schedule and we meet on the 9th of June.
  • ACP Project proposal


Participants

  • Filoretta Velica
  • Hanne Vuegen
  • Veerle Michiels
  • Bart Decuypere
  • Anne Nerenhausen
  • José Costa Teixeira
  • Philippe Baise


Minutes

  • Reschedule of the meeting on the 26th May (Bank holiday): We can't find an ideal schedule and we meet on the 9th of June.

Presentation of the ACP Project Proposal

  • Hypothetical question: If the PICT profile turns out to be incompatible with Manzana, what do we do? - we'll need to create 2 profiles (independent or interdependent, depending on the need) - if we find that ScoreResult is too strict, then we can still change ScoreResult.
  • We expect that this will not the case for the ScoreResult because ScoreResult is not specific for Manzana.
  • Voting on approval of the proposal:
    • We can validate the project proposal as usual:
      • The Validation Working Group finds no objections today.
      • Each group member will review the project proposal and will come back with any objections they may find by the 26th May.
      • on the 27th of May, the Proposal will be considered approved if no objections arrive meanwhile. If some objections arrive, it will be handled on the meeting of the 9th June.
  • New idea:
    • We could have in the Validation meeting a 2-minute overview of all ongoing standardization projects - kind of a "report out" from the Technical WGs to the Validation WG. Just to inform the status.
    • We'd reserve 15 minutes in each Validation meeting to listen to the reports and provide esssential comment (longer debates would be in the working groups)
    • The responsibles could be the group facilitators, but it is not clear - so we give it a few weeks to consider this new proposal (status report from the Projects/WGs to the Validation Working Group) and we'll rediscuss in the next meeting.