IGs need maturity model levels too

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: High
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • STU3
    • FHIR Infrastructure
    • STU
    • Change Management & Versioning (versions/compatibility)
    • Hide

      We have a notion of maturity for Implementation Guides and other FHIR artifacts (e.g. value sets, extensions, profiles, etc.). We will work to expose this in HL7 published implementation guides, along with evidence that supports that assertion. Note that not all artifacts in an IG will necessarily have the same maturity level.

      We will continue to evaluate what maturity indicators are both useful to the community and manageable to evaluate and track. FMG will determine the policy and when it will come into force, but certainly sometime in 2019.

      Show
      We have a notion of maturity for Implementation Guides and other FHIR artifacts (e.g. value sets, extensions, profiles, etc.). We will work to expose this in HL7 published implementation guides, along with evidence that supports that assertion. Note that not all artifacts in an IG will necessarily have the same maturity level. We will continue to evaluate what maturity indicators are both useful to the community and manageable to evaluate and track. FMG will determine the policy and when it will come into force, but certainly sometime in 2019.
    • Mike Henderson/Rick Geimer: 21-0-1
    • Enhancement
    • Non-substantive

      Many of the IGs in this ballot seem very immature, but there is no apparent identifaction on the ballot site of the maturity level for the IG. This makes assessment, particularly those on a normative track, very difficult. There needs to be a listed maturity level for any IG in the ballot.

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Rob McClure
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: