Approving 3.1 Proposals

Governance Technical Committee
1

Hi @bloom @MikeThacker @klambacher @SarahP @devin @skyleryoung,

Please review each proposal and indicate whether you approve via the poll below. We’d appreciate responses by the end of next week (20th September) to allow time for us time to make alterations if required.

I was unable to add freetext comments so if you have any, feel free to reply to this post with them or you can add them to the docs themselves.

Thanks,

Dan

Adding Service Area to Service At Location
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Support ISO 693-3 on Taxonomy Terms
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Secure API Queries via HTTP POST
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Model Capacity to take Referrals
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Enable Query by Taxonomies in the API Specification
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Add a Location Type of Redacted
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Add a label field to the attribute schema
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Add a dedicated URL Schema
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
2

I am not sure what I’m doing wrong but I can’t seem to vote?

3

I think we’re too late to vote - me too!

4

Hi, @bloom @klambacher @SarahP @devin @skyleryoung,

The previous poll expired and I’m unable to amend it so here’s a new one.

Thanks,

Dan

Adding Service Area to Service At Location
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Support ISO 693-3 on Taxonomy Terms
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Secure API Queries via HTTP POST
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Model Capacity to take Referrals
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Enable Query by Taxonomies in the API Specification
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Add a Location Type of Redacted
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Add a label field to the attribute schema
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
Add a dedicated URL Schema
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
6

Thanks for your votes @SarahP - much appreciated!

7

@bloom @klambacher @skyleryoung @devin

Polite reminder that not responding to this blocks us from getting on with the work itself.

We have limited time before Matt goes on paternity so we’d appreciate responses asap.

Dan

8

I can’t seem to vote on these embedded polls.

Next time can we use Google Forms?

Can we also add an “abstain” option? For items where I’m not familiar with the change I’d rather abstain than vote yes.

9

Also couldn’t vote - also would like an abstain option!

I’m in support all items except the location type redacted, for the reasons I indicated in the last meeting - this doesn’t cover the privacy use cases adequately IMO, where we may need to share the data but also indicate that it is private vs just completely redacting the information.

10

Heads up that I have drafted a blog post announcing the new HSDS 3.1.

It still needs a couple of details and links but is ready for review.
@devin @skyleryoung @SarahP @klambacher @MikeThacker et al, please review and give feedback – I’ll aim to post in early December, so let me know if you have any questions or suggestions!

1 Like
11

Blog post is up! https://openreferral.org/upgrading-our-standards-introducing-version-3-1-of-the-human-service-data-specifications/ thanks to @kathrynods for helping put this together.

2 Likes