Re: (DRAFT) HL7 PSS for computable semantic links from FHIR to RIM

Well, the objective is to build this into the build tool.  Once that's
done, it will have to be done everywhere.  My general leaning is fewer PSSs
rather than more.  No need to take on administrivia if you don't have to.
The primary purpose of PSSs is to give other work groups and stakeholders
outside of HL7 an idea of what's going on.  I don't think multiple PSSs
provides any benefit along that path.

*Lloyd McKenzie*, P.Eng.
Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com
M: +1 587-334-1110 <1-587-334-1110>
W: gevityinc.com


*GEVITY**Informatics for a healthier world *

CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the exclusive
use of its intended recipients. If you have received this communication by
error, please notify the sender and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it*.*

NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions
expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance positions

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> On 06/23/2015 06:05 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with text links.  I don't think the scope should be limited to
>> Pharmacy.  We can start with them, but I don't think the project is
>> complete until this process is integrated into the FHIR build tooling
>> and has been rolled out across all relevant FHIR resources and profiles.
>>   (Though, we could say that the roll-out simply falls within the scope
>> of the various WG's "develop and maintain" projects.)
>>
>
> Agreed, but do you think the scope of this particular PSS should be
> broadened?  I'm thinking it may be better to keep this one limited to
> Pharmacy, and do another once we have some experience doing it.
>
> David Booth
>
>
>> In terms of tooling to support generation, the links themselves will
>> still need to be captured in the Excel spreadsheets used to author
>> resources and I doubt that a stand-alone tool to author individual
>> mappings will be terribly feasible.  So on the tooling side, I think
>> we'll be looking at adjusting the build process in order to be able to
>> validate the mappings that are asserted in the Excel spreadsheets in
>> whatever syntax we decide is most feasible.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Lloyd McKenzie*, P.Eng.
>> Senior Consultant, Information Technology Services
>> Gevity Consulting Inc.
>>
>> E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com>
>> M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>
>> W: gevityinc.com <http://gevityinc.com/>
>>
>> *GEVITY
>> **/Informatics for a healthier world /*
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the
>> exclusive use of its intended recipients. If you have received this
>> communication by error, please notify the sender and delete the message
>> without copying or disclosing it*.*
>>
>> NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions
>> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my
>> employer, my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance
>> positions
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:14 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org
>> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Apparently the version that I sent is in a format that gets blocked
>>     for security.  Try the attached version instead.  I hope this one
>>     can be opened.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     David Booth
>>
>>
>>     On 06/23/2015 04:25 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>
>>         Attached is a slightly revised draft PSS, as edited on today's
>>         HL7/W3C
>>         RDF call.  Some key things to check:
>>
>>            - There was some discussion that this project might be more
>>         appropriately owned by the FHIR Infrastructure group, and
>>         co-sponsored
>>         by M&M and ITS, instead of being under ARB, though it is fine
>>         for it to
>>         start under ARB.
>>
>>            - We added some additional names to the Project Team: Grahame
>>         Grieve,
>>         Lloyd McKenzie and Rob Hausam.  Grahame was the only one whose
>>         name was
>>         added without being present, so I took an action to check:
>>         Grahame, are
>>         you okay with being listed as a Project Facilitator?
>>
>>            - Section 3.b Project Need uses the phrase "text links".
>>         Lloyd, do
>>         you think that phrasing is adequate as is, or would you suggest a
>>         different phrasing?  (Lloyd had to drop before we got to review
>>         that part.)
>>
>>            - In Section 3.g a Target Date of Jan 2016 is listed.  There
>>         was some
>>         question about whether that is too ambitious or should be left
>>         as a good
>>         target.
>>
>>         Unfortunately I neglected to turn on "track changes" before making
>>         modifications, but hopefully you can run a comparison to see the
>>         differences if necessary.  The previous version is here:
>>
>> http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/arb_fhir_rim/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2F%2Acheckout%2A%2Ftrunk%2FArB-computable%2520semantic%2520links%2520from%2520FHIR%2520-PSS.docx
>>
>>
>>         Thanks!
>>         David Booth
>>
>>
>>