Standing Technical Meetups

Technical
1

Thread for following up on Standing Technical Meetups.

2

Standing Technical Meetup - 2023-10-10T23:00:00Z

Here’s a link to the running notes doc and recording of the Standing Technical Meetup - 11th October 23.

Below you can find a summary of the discussion points and actions arising:

Summit Takeaways:

  • There was an appreciation for the opportunity to learn more about Sklers work on Silobuster
  • The mix of of knowledge amongst those at the summit was discussed.
  • Kate highlighted that those newer to the standard seemed to encountering issues and grappling with the questions already faced by experienced members of the community.

Actions:

  • Arrange a dedication Silobuster session (perhaps a presentation and Q&A) on this at a future technical meetup.
  • Consider how best to cater to newbies and old hands at future summits.
  • Consider whether we are adequately documenting and/or communicating the knowledge and experience of the technical community in way that could prevent those new to the standard from unnecessarily covering the same ground.

Survey of the technical community

  • It was agreed that it would be a good idea to build on previous work [mapping tooling requirements]( build on previous work undertaken to map out what Open Referral Tools - Google Sheets) by engaging with the wider technical community to understand what tools they would most benefit from.

Action:

  • Devin to lead on pulling together a survey.

Validator:

  • The group agreed on the need for Validation tooling sooner rather than later and went on discuss
    different approaches; service vs downloadable tool vs integratable library the use of YML and licensing. It was agree that when a spec is finalised, we should put out a request for proposals to the broader community.

Actions:

Taxonomies:

  • We discussed the potential for code lists, mapping taxonomies. Gregg mentioned that AIRS are undertaking a landscape analysis.

Action:

  • Greg to share the work AIRS are doing.

UK update:

  • Mike bought attention to the forum thread on the work TPX Impact are doing
  • Gave an overview of the key aims of the project which is to review the business case and develop a strategy for mass uptake (should the business case support this).
  • Updated on the fortnightly show and tells Sign-up for those here
  • Greg recommended as a member of an advisory board. Greg could help steer UK/Global alignment.This could potentially lead to funding for validator but not in the near term.

Update on FHIR work -

  • Greg gave a quick update on the FHIR work which aims to bring HSDS into the healthcare space. SeeForum Post / Blog Post.

Documentation Review
strong text

  • A further request for feedback on the proposed updates to documentation was request **

Github Project board:

  • Dan gave an overview of the proposed Technical Tasks and Priorities**
  • Generally well received. Greg requested a switch to three status’ - Backlog, Up-next, In-progress.

Actions:

  • Dan to consider feedback and give further thought to the use of Github to manage non-technical tasks (which the only thing preventing adoption)

Skyler - 211 Profile:

Action:

  • Dan to setup call between to Skyler, Matt and potentially David to discuss.
  • Mike to ask Dom in the meantime.

Skyler’s other Forum Posts:

Reminder to the group re forum post from Skyler:

Forum Post:

Thanks,

Dan

3

Hi folks – I’ve been traveling for weeks and only just now getting back into gear, so I’m a bit late on preparation for tomorrow’s standing technical meeting. We have notes here, with potential agenda items carried forward from last time that i’m also pasting below.

Prospective agenda items:
Agenda:

  • Silobuster session
  • Validator
  • Community Survey (Tooling Requirements/Dev Stacks)
  • Documentation Review
  • Github Project Board

I suspect @skyleryoung might need some more time to prep a SiloBuster session, and we’d probably want to put in some effort to promote it – so maybe that’s not a topic for tomorrow (other than perhaps planning for it)?

I haven’t received more input on the Validator so maybe we can consider ways to elicit such input, including the survey that @devin proposed?

And eager to review the slate of documentation changes.

What else should we address? Let us know!
greg

4

I’ve added the following: