For questions about this archive, please contact webmaster@hl7.org.
Grahame Grieve (Jan 07 2018 at 21:11):ITS is planning to ballot FHIRPath as normative in May. There's several implementations in different languages by different authors, there's plenty of use in the FHIR spec, there's a solid set of tests. There's some production use. And there's been very little substantiative change
This is a call for comments and consideration on making this normative. In particular, has anyone used the v2 part (other than me?)
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 07 2018 at 21:55):Does it meet the requirement of 2 prior publication cycles as STU?
Grahame Grieve (Jan 07 2018 at 22:24):where is that requirement?
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 07 2018 at 22:43):FMM5 for FHIR says "PLUS the artifact has been published in two formal publication release cycles at FMM1+ (i.e. Trial Use level) and has been implemented in at least 5 independent production systems in more than one country". While FHIRPath doesn't have to adhere to FHIR's FMM requirements, I think the organization has identified the notion of maturity levels as "good practice" and given the high level of dependency FHIR has on FHIRPath, I would hope that we would maintain that same level of rigor and process. The notion of 2 STU publication cycles is to ensure that the artifact has had sufficiently wide and deep penetration that we feel safe locking it down. I don't see a dependency where FHIRPath would have to be normative in order for StructureDefinition to be normative, so I'm not sure there's a rush.
Grahame Grieve (Jan 07 2018 at 23:01):discussion continued on https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/implementers/subject/FHIRPath since this is not about v2
Last updated: Mar 23 2020 at 00:02 UTC