What do we do about versioning and evolution of profiles (question by Jacques Yacoub)

[bdc-ehealth]

WG: you can refer to a specific version using the pipe symbol and the version of the resource.

1. We need to test whether the explicit versioning actually works.

2. If you do not specify the version explicitly, it will use the first version, even if there is a global reference to two different versions of one package (this has been tested)

[bdc-ehealth]

Jacques Yacoub called and he is preparing a document with his concerns. There are relations to Postel's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle).

After publication, softwares have a 6 month period to implement the new standard. During that period, the input and output can be mixed. Prescriptions have a life time of 3 years. This means that there can still be prescriptions around from a standard that 3,5 years ago has been superseded by a new version. Depending on the volatility of the standard, that can be a lot of versions to support.

[costateixeira]

The prescription is not necessarily the same as the resource in a given FHIR version. Perhaps we can explore that clarification. Is the 6 month period written in some official transition plan? I know RIZIV was looking into this, not sure we have already a defined transition plan by (or considering) HL7 BE Validation.

…

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:28 AM Bart Decuypere (eHealth) < ***@***.***> wrote: Jacques Yacoub called and he is preparing a document with his concerns. There are relations to Postel's law ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle). After publication, software's have a 6 month period to implement the new standard. During that period, the input and output can be mixed. Prescriptions have a life time of 3 years. This means that there can still be prescriptions around from a standard that 3,5 years ago has been superseded by a new version. Depending on the volatility of the standard, that can be a lot of versions to support. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#191 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD3HUUD663KZ7WRRCUYVJA3WJXWTZANCNFSM6AAAAAASDRI4V4> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[bdc-ehealth]

The 6 month's period is a request from Agoria.

[bdc-ehealth]

WG:

• we will wait for some extra input from the BE side (Anthony)
• we think that both the structure and the businessrules can change because of evolutions in the legislation.

[bdc-ehealth]

WG: Also Brecht Van Vooren has a similar question for Vitalink. We shall discuss this at the architecture workgroup.

[bdc-ehealth]

WG: on the large scale, we will stay at R4. The project will not move to R5 until there is an official request for it.

[bdc-ehealth]

WG: we will ping Brecht Van Vooren for his input on this matter, and discuss with @MatonAnthony

[bdc-ehealth]

@MatonAnthony: meeting with @smals-bvv on this topic on 08/06/2023