| | | | |
|---|
|
10 min | Opening, Various aspects | ALL | SEC Jira board. | CPB: HRID templates - @Severin Kohler @Ian McNicoll @Joost HolslagSilje, ADL 2.4 presentation @Bostjan Lah , Governance of decision support algorithms Ask CPB for other suggestions @Joost Holslag Other artefacts such as FHIR connect, OMOP mappings, what is the status, etc. @Sebastian Garde
SEC: REST API @Sebastian Iancu ADL 2.4 + HRID, impact on AQL @Severin Kohler @Ian McNicoll Update from CDS WG @Rong Chen Federation WG @Sebastian Iancu @Severin Kohler WG workflow - formalise requirement for release notes, presentation for major versions, same for adopted specs @Bostjan Lah FHIR joint working group report @Diego Bosca
|
| | TEMPLATE_ID | | @Ian McNicoll report from WG: keep current single String style but move towards HRID Needs support in AD (HRID in template id) We also need human readable template name goes into title Best to discuss with CPB - as @Severin Kohler to prepare document for discussion (get together with Silje, @Joost Holslag and @Ian McNicoll to prepare)
|
| | All | Idea of OpenEHR Labs proposed by TB | @Ian McNicoll there is value in some aspects of the proposal, however there might be issue on to label “openEHR” without making it responsibility of SEC @Erik Sundvall WG is partially already facilitating that workspace; external persons can jon WG. @Sebastian Iancu concerns about consistency between various specification @Birger Haarbrandt it should be clear what would be official SEC specification and what is Lab, so that consumers are not confused or mislead @Pablo Pazos what happens when there are not enough members for a WG? @Seref Arikan we will have to think about when can we state that a specification should be label as openEHR @Erik Sundvall we have to think about how to foster innovation, and not block great ideas by majority @Seref Arikan yes, lets innovate, but keep short feedback loops @Birger Haarbrandt if we look to how Severin managed to develop the FHIRConnect specification, then we can conclude that is possible to work on new specification, have the community adopting it, without having the need put it in the Lab The issue regarding restarting task planning is deferred to CDS WG to be analyzed and prioritized first
|
| Governanace | @Severin Kohler | Propose to add branch policies on github, add PullRequest requirements | |
| BMM | @Sebastian Iancu | | |
| | @Sebastian Iancu | | REST to discuss in Barcelona, release getting closer BMM file updates - between @Sebastian Iancu @Mattijs Kuhlmann and @Bostjan Lah, to make it editable YAML would be better (in the future) but start with JSON Tests of rendering specs in Antora, maybe make it less intrusive Discussion with Graheme about rendering as StructureDefinition
|
| | @Thomas Beale | | Switch BMM to use JSON instead of ODIN in Archie, @Mattijs Kuhlmann looking into that already BMM spec cleanups, reduce it to v3.x, @Sebastian Iancu suggests back to v2.3, Archie uses v3.unknown. Separate out 'Process automation' specs group: Task Planning specs Extract Expression Language (EL, which is 'advanced' compared to BEL, which is 'basic') - extract EL meta-model from BMM spec to its own spec Extract 'subject proxy' service definition from Platform Services spec to own spec, within this spec group.
|
| | @Ian McNicoll | | Ask foundation to set Task Planning as CC BY, @Ian McNicoll to prepare email for foundation |
| | | WG and adopted specs | Ideally with release notes before it gets presented to SEC including a proper presentation by a member of WG - or representative of org developing it |