EM CAP SC

Unless OASIS policy doesn’t allow this …   Regarding versioning of the CAP Terms committee not for updates to the CAP Event Terms List:  what if we use minor numbers (to the right of the decimal point) for List (and editorial) updates, and major revision numbers for document content changes?   Initial publication v1.0 First List update v1.1 List update and some editorial fixes v1.2 … V1.3 … v1.n Substantive content update v2.0   Just a thought   Scott M Robertson PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP Principal Technology Consultant   Kaiser Permanente Technology Risk Office Health IT Strategy & Policy 310-200-0231 tro.kp.org ---------- kp.org/thrive   NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:   If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.   If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.   Thank you.

Looks good to me. Could this be inserted at the end of Section 5? as a specific kind of versioning for the intermittent change versioning separate from Appendix C revision history? I would suggest also recording major revision numbers in Appendix C, with an inter-document reference to the Section 5 versioning where we might want to record more detailed changes including new List terms which would make the 4th column, Changes Made, of Appendix C longer than necessary. Cheers, Rex Cheers, Rex On 8/7/2020 10:54 AM, Scott M. Robertson wrote: Unless OASIS policy doesn’t allow this …   Regarding versioning of the CAP Terms committee not for updates to the CAP Event Terms List:  what if we use minor numbers (to the right of the decimal point) for List (and editorial) updates, and major revision numbers for document content changes?   Initial publication v1.0 First List update v1.1 List update and some editorial fixes v1.2 … V1.3 … v1.n Substantive content update v2.0   Just a thought   Scott M Robertson PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP Principal Technology Consultant   Kaiser Permanente Technology Risk Office Health IT Strategy & Policy 310-200-0231 tro.kp.org ---------- kp.org/thrive   NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:   If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.   If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.   Thank you. This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

Let’s get Chet to weigh in on this.  I’m good with whatever is decided as long as we are within the OASIS guidelines and don’t create MORE work for ourselves as this terms list grows.  Thanks! Elysa   From: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Rex Brooks Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 1:56 PM To: Scott M. Robertson <Scott.M.Robertson@kp.org>; emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [emergency-cap] Proposal on versioning the CAP Terms committee note   Looks good to me. Could this be inserted at the end of Section 5? as a specific kind of versioning for the intermittent change versioning separate from Appendix C revision history? I would suggest also recording major revision numbers in Appendix C, with an inter-document reference to the Section 5 versioning where we might want to record more detailed changes including new List terms which would make the 4th column, Changes Made, of Appendix C longer than necessary. Cheers, Rex Cheers, Rex On 8/7/2020 10:54 AM, Scott M. Robertson wrote: Unless OASIS policy doesn’t allow this …   Regarding versioning of the CAP Terms committee not for updates to the CAP Event Terms List:  what if we use minor numbers (to the right of the decimal point) for List (and editorial) updates, and major revision numbers for document content changes?   Initial publication v1.0 First List update v1.1 List update and some editorial fixes v1.2 … V1.3 … v1.n Substantive content update v2.0   Just a thought   Scott M Robertson PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP Principal Technology Consultant   Kaiser Permanente Technology Risk Office Health IT Strategy & Policy 310-200-0231 tro.kp.org ---------- kp.org/thrive   NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:   If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.  Thank you.   This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

Scott, I may be wrong but I think if we roll a version number it has to go through public review.  Rex may know for sure of TC Admin can advise.  I think after we publish, we will track changes in the revision history with working drafts until we are ready for a PR and new version.  I’ve copied Chet on this for his insight.  Thanks, Elysa     From: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Scott M. Robertson Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 12:54 PM To: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency-cap] Proposal on versioning the CAP Terms committee note   Unless OASIS policy doesn’t allow this …   Regarding versioning of the CAP Terms committee not for updates to the CAP Event Terms List:  what if we use minor numbers (to the right of the decimal point) for List (and editorial) updates, and major revision numbers for document content changes?   Initial publication v1.0 First List update v1.1 List update and some editorial fixes v1.2 … V1.3 … v1.n Substantive content update v2.0   Just a thought   Scott M Robertson PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP Principal Technology Consultant   Kaiser Permanente Technology Risk Office Health IT Strategy & Policy 310-200-0231 tro.kp.org ---------- kp.org/thrive   NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:   If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.  Thank you.

Hi Elysa, Scott, Rex - Your version numbering isn't what triggers a public review. When to do a public review is up to the TC keeping in mind that you have to do public review(s) before you can vote to approve a CSD as a Committee Specification. In other words, if you do v1.0, 1.1, 1.x ... but you just leave those as local copies of your working draft, that is no problem. Let's say you publish v1.5 and the TC feels that this is mature and ready for approval. It then will need to go through public review beforeÂyou can request the Special Majority Vote to approve the CS. If you don't make that threshold until v2.0, that's fine too. You would eventually end up with CAP Events Terms v2.0 Committee Specification 01. Does that explain it clearly? /chet On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 11:24 AM < elysajones@yahoo.com > wrote: Scott, I may be wrong but I think if we roll a version number it has to go through public review. Rex may know for sure of TC Admin can advise. I think after we publish, we will track changes in the revision history with working drafts until we are ready for a PR and new version. Iâve copied Chet on this for his insight. Thanks, Elysa   From: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org < emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org > On Behalf Of Scott M. Robertson Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 12:54 PM To: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency-cap] Proposal on versioning the CAP Terms committee note  Unless OASIS policy doesnât allow this â  Regarding versioning of the CAP Terms committee not for updates to the CAP Event Terms List: what if we use minor numbers (to the right of the decimal point) for List (and editorial) updates, and major revision numbers for document content changes?  Initial publication v1.0 First List update v1.1 List update and some editorial fixes v1.2 â V1.3 â v1.n Substantive content update v2.0  Just a thought  Scott M Robertson PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP Principal Technology Consultant  Kaiser Permanente Technology Risk Office Health IT Strategy & Policy 310-200-0231 tro.kp.org ---------- kp.org/thrive  NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you. -- /chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward OASIS: Advancing open source & open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Mobile: +1 201-341-1393Â

Hi Chet, Thanks for the info.  Is this the same for a Committee Note? Stay well,  Elysa  Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 8, 2020, 1:08 PM, Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> wrote: Hi Elysa, Scott, Rex -  Your version numbering isn't what triggers a public review. When to do a public review is up to the TC keeping in mind that you have to do public review(s) before you can vote to approve a CSD as a Committee Specification.  In other words, if you do v1.0, 1.1, 1.x ... but you just leave those as local copies of your working draft, that is no problem. Let's say you publish v1.5 and the TC feels that this is mature and ready for approval. It then will need to go through public review before you can request the Special Majority Vote to approve the CS.  If you don't make that threshold until v2.0, that's fine too. You would eventually end up with CAP Events Terms v2.0 Committee Specification 01.  Does that explain it clearly?  /chet On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 11:24 AM < elysajones@yahoo.com > wrote: Scott, I may be wrong but I think if we roll a version number it has to go through public review.  Rex may know for sure of TC Admin can advise.  I think after we publish, we will track changes in the revision history with working drafts until we are ready for a PR and new version.  Iâve copied Chet on this for his insight.  Thanks, Elysa     From: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org < emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org > On Behalf Of Scott M. Robertson Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 12:54 PM To: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency-cap] Proposal on versioning the CAP Terms committee note   Unless OASIS policy doesnât allow this â   Regarding versioning of the CAP Terms committee not for updates to the CAP Event Terms List:  what if we use minor numbers (to the right of the decimal point) for List (and editorial) updates, and major revision numbers for document content changes?   Initial publication v1.0 First List update v1.1 List update and some editorial fixes v1.2 â V1.3 â v1.n Substantive content update v2.0   Just a thought   Scott M Robertson PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP Principal Technology Consultant   Kaiser Permanente Technology Risk Office Health IT Strategy & Policy 310-200-0231 tro.kp.org ---------- kp.org/thrive   NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:   If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.  Thank you. -- /chet  ---------------- Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward OASIS: Advancing open source & open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 

Well, with the exception that a CN is no longer required to go through public review. So you can pretty much do what you want there. /chet On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 2:19 PM Elysa Jones < elysajones@yahoo.com > wrote: Hi Chet, Thanks for the info. Is this the same for aÂCommittee Note? Stay well, Elysa Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, August 8, 2020, 1:08 PM, Chet Ensign < chet.ensign@oasis-open.org > wrote: Hi Elysa, Scott, Rex - Your version numbering isn't what triggers a public review. When to do a public review is up to the TC keeping in mind that you have to do public review(s) before you can vote to approve a CSD as a Committee Specification. In other words, if you do v1.0, 1.1, 1.x ... but you just leave those as local copies of your working draft, that is no problem. Let's say you publish v1.5 and the TC feels that this is mature and ready for approval. It then will need to go through public review beforeÂyou can request the Special Majority Vote to approve the CS. If you don't make that threshold until v2.0, that's fine too. You would eventually end up with CAP Events Terms v2.0 Committee Specification 01. Does that explain it clearly? /chet On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 11:24 AM < elysajones@yahoo.com > wrote: Scott, I may be wrong but I think if we roll a version number it has to go through public review. Rex may know for sure of TC Admin can advise. I think after we publish, we will track changes in the revision history with working drafts until we are ready for a PR and new version. Iâve copied Chet on this for his insight. Thanks, Elysa   From: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org < emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org > On Behalf Of Scott M. Robertson Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 12:54 PM To: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency-cap] Proposal on versioning the CAP Terms committee note  Unless OASIS policy doesnât allow this â  Regarding versioning of the CAP Terms committee not for updates to the CAP Event Terms List: what if we use minor numbers (to the right of the decimal point) for List (and editorial) updates, and major revision numbers for document content changes?  Initial publication v1.0 First List update v1.1 List update and some editorial fixes v1.2 â V1.3 â v1.n Substantive content update v2.0  Just a thought  Scott M Robertson PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP Principal Technology Consultant  Kaiser Permanente Technology Risk Office Health IT Strategy & Policy 310-200-0231 tro.kp.org ---------- kp.org/thrive  NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you. -- /chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward OASIS: Advancing open source & open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 -- /chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward OASIS: Advancing open source & open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Mobile: +1 201-341-1393Â

Yes, any new version, even minor version number, will require review and ballot. My proposal is to use minor version numbers to indicate term list updates (and non substantive edits) and major versions to indicate significant changes to the document. And to
have those minor updates to go on a schedule, something like yearly (if there have been term updates). 



Scott M Robertson  PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP

Kaiser Permanente 
Technology Risk Office   Health IT Strategy & Policy


On Aug 8, 2020, at 8:24 AM, "elysajones@yahoo.com" <elysajones@yahoo.com> wrote:




ï



Caution: This email came from outside Kaiser Permanente. Do not open attachments or click on links if you do not recognize the sender.


Scott, I may be wrong but I think if we roll a version number it has to go through public review.  Rex may know for sure of TC Admin can advise.  I think after we publish, we will track changes in the revision history with working drafts
until we are ready for a PR and new version.  Iâve copied Chet on this for his insight.  Thanks, Elysa
 
 


From: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org <emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Scott M. Robertson
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 12:54 PM
To: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [emergency-cap] Proposal on versioning the CAP Terms committee note


 
Unless OASIS policy doesnât allow this â
 
Regarding versioning of the CAP Terms committee not for updates to the CAP Event Terms List:  what if we use minor numbers (to the right of the decimal point) for List (and editorial) updates, and major revision numbers for document content
changes?
 




Initial publication


v1.0




First List update


v1.1




List update and some editorial fixes


v1.2




â


V1.3 â v1.n




Substantive content update


v2.0




 
Just a thought

 

Scott M Robertson
PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP
Principal Technology Consultant
 
Kaiser Permanente

Technology Risk Office
Health IT Strategy & Policy
310-200-0231
tro.kp.org
----------
kp.org/thrive
 
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:   If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you
are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding
or saving them.  Thank you.



NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.  
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.  
Thank you.

Sounds like a good proposal for the Committee Note. Elysa   From: Scott M. Robertson <Scott.M.Robertson@kp.org> Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 9:39 PM To: elysajones@yahoo.com Cc: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org; Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [emergency-cap] Proposal on versioning the CAP Terms committee note   Yes, any new version, even minor version number, will require review and ballot. My proposal is to use minor version numbers to indicate term list updates (and non substantive edits) and major versions to indicate significant changes to the document. And to have those minor updates to go on a schedule, something like yearly (if there have been term updates).  Scott M Robertson  PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP Kaiser Permanente  Technology Risk Office   Health IT Strategy & Policy On Aug 8, 2020, at 8:24 AM, " elysajones@yahoo.com " < elysajones@yahoo.com > wrote: ï Caution: This email came from outside Kaiser Permanente. Do not open attachments or click on links if you do not recognize the sender. Scott, I may be wrong but I think if we roll a version number it has to go through public review.  Rex may know for sure of TC Admin can advise.  I think after we publish, we will track changes in the revision history with working drafts until we are ready for a PR and new version.  Iâve copied Chet on this for his insight.  Thanks, Elysa     From: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org < emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org > On Behalf Of Scott M. Robertson Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 12:54 PM To: emergency-cap@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [emergency-cap] Proposal on versioning the CAP Terms committee note   Unless OASIS policy doesnât allow this â   Regarding versioning of the CAP Terms committee not for updates to the CAP Event Terms List:  what if we use minor numbers (to the right of the decimal point) for List (and editorial) updates, and major revision numbers for document content changes?   Initial publication v1.0 First List update v1.1 List update and some editorial fixes v1.2 â V1.3 â v1.n Substantive content update v2.0   Just a thought   Scott M Robertson PharmD, RPh, FHL7, GISP, CISSP Principal Technology Consultant   Kaiser Permanente Technology Risk Office Health IT Strategy & Policy 310-200-0231 tro.kp.org ---------- kp.org/thrive   NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:   If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.  Thank you. NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you.