This topic flows from recent HSDS Workgroup meetings, as well as the topic for “HSDS 3.0 - Key Decisions” HSDS 3.0 - Key Decisions - #9 by skyleryoung
I looked around for duplicates, and while this topic is alluded to in a few places, it appears we don’t have a dedicated thread to settle the issue. So here we go.
First, I’d like to vet an assumption in writing: at the last HSDS Workgroup meeting we decided that defining compliance is not a blocking issue for release of 3.0. We’ll release and then keep working to define that topic. Does anyone have a different understanding?
Next, we have discussed a couple of scenarios for “compliance” that stood out to me:
Compliance Version 1
Compliance encompasses both Data Packages and APIs. Levels of compliance might look something like this:
- “Compatible”/Minimum: The publisher is providing CSVs in the Data Package format.
- Standard: The publisher is providing Service level data via HSDA specifications.
- Full: The publisher is providing all core data via HSDA specifications.
(For more info on 2 and 3, see “HSDS 3.0 - Key Decisions” referenced above.)
Compliance Version 2
This version is the same as Version 1, but without the first “Data Package” option included. The reasoning is to force conversations with enterprise organizations into the API domain without leaving wiggle room to avoid it. However, community guidelines should be vocal about allowing use of data packages for small, temporary, or poor organizations, and also provide tooling to improve interoperability between data packages and APIs.
Compliance Version 3
There are no set standards for compliance, and instead we publish use-case specific compliance standards in much the same way we anticipate publishing Application Profiles. This option is non-exclusive, and may be used to extend or refine default standards as defined above.
This list of compliance options is non-exhaustive and meant to be a starting point for discussion. What are your thoughts/ideas/assumptions for compliance?