[Openid-specs-heart] HEART 2015-08-05 meeting notes

[jim kragh]

Thanks for sharing,...  informative and constructive in reaching the
patient end point.

May all have a nice evening!

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Debbie Bucci <debbucci at gmail.com> wrote:

> Attendees:
> Eve Maler
> Justin Richer
> Josh Mandel
> Adrian Gropper
> Thomas Sullivan
> Debbie Bucci
>
> We have decided to delineate between mechanical and semantic scope docs.
>
> For the PCP <-> PHR use case:
>
> The pre determined choice token confidential token choice and exactly what
> information needs (example: PHR's authorization endpoint)  to be shared in
> advance between the PCP's EHR and Alice's PCP was left out of the
> discussion for now.
>
> There is one basic mechanical Oauth  generic flow that occurs twice in the
> use case.
>
> Given the group has generally agreed that the SMART specifications are a
> good place to *start ... *for this particular use case  the only semantic
> FHIR scope that is necessary is the patient/*.read scope that grants
> permission to read any resource for the current patient.
>
> During the registration process Alice should be able to select at a fine
> grain level which resources she is willing to share with the PHR.   This
> mimic's a specific process - Adrian please provide.  This information will
> be used to generate the access token.
>
> The one thing left at the end of the discussion is whether the patient
> record is implicit or explicitly stated.  This is a design decision that
> may make a difference as we move towards our next use case in
> which delegation is a factor.
>
> Corrections/updates appreciated.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-heart mailing list
> Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150805/6a76d300/attachment-0001.html>