Public Page
2021-04-06 Architecture Meeting Minutes
Public Page
CIECA 500 Westover Dr #11617; Sanford, NC 27330
Date
Apr 6, 2021
ANTITRUST STATEMENT
As participants in this meeting, we need to be mindful of the constraints of antitrust laws. There shall be no discussions of agreements or concerted actions that may restrain competition. This prohibition includes the exchange of information concerning individual prices, rates, coverages, market practices, claims settlement practices, or any other competitive aspect of an individual company’s operation. Each participant is obligated to speak up immediately for the purpose of preventing any discussion falling outside these bounds.
Agenda
Antitrust and Meeting minutes acceptance
Review Dan and Mikes Style Guide and messages and implement the Google Revisions and other revisions
Specify Simple Types that will be used in JSON
Andy to provide more information for the Team to review.
Version of CIECA API
Meeting Minutes
Antitrust Accepted
Meeting Minutes Accepted
Not able to review the Style Guide that Dan and Mike was working on due to technical difficulties
GitHub Structure
Add folders to GitHub for JSON-Schema, and JSON Test Instances like we did in the BMS Schema
Make sure that we have a folder for negative test instances.
Simple Types discussion to simplify strings to one value and numeric to one value or continue with specific validations
Should we validate string and numeric values or let that go?
Validating is not as useful in JSON as XML; is one thought.
These Constraints exist since BMS was created.
BMS proposals are universal approved for length to be longer.
Anything that is longer than CIECA approved length can be truncated.
Open API examples do not seem to have max length.
The Max length option was not available until JSON version 3.1; so examples may not have them because this is a new version. It does appear that this feature was requested and examples will start to have this validation.
The API examples that we have looked at is limited to a few areas, maybe we should look at larger more complex examples.
Strict Schemas VS No Schemas Vs a middle version?
middle version of schema may have fields and required values but not have strict rules
CIECA has 100s of codes that we validate to help our standards throughout the industry; removing these seem to let people move away from standards.
What happens if we do not force the date and time validation in a message such as appointment?
If we decide that we are not having a schema that validates values, the Data Dictionary will be very important to keep up to date so the rules and lengths can be found and CIECA members can build the validations.
If we provide the schemas, the developer will not have to build these validations and possibly interpret or change the standards. No validations in our schemas means developers have to manually build them into the interface.
JSON schema errors are more difficult to read and not user friendly.
Simplification eliminate details you don’t need but keep the details you do need.
The XML schemas are very complex; we do not need All the data and ALL the rules; however, those that are needed should be in the JSON Schemas.
The JSON for assignment has been simplified and removed data to make it smaller.
When it was dropped into Swagger Hub it was still to big.
Part of simplification is to remove types that do not add benefit. If we only have one field that needs a type; we can make that description on one field instead of making it a type.
Decision that we will have a validating schema; we will not worry about speed; but we want to make presentable for ease of implementations.
Required fields are important and must be validated.
Structure is important.
CIECA can validated length if it is critical to the message
CIECA will validate Code List Values
Version of CIECA API
Policy Version has 3 parts 1.0.0
CIECAs rule now is no one part can go above 10; so we do not have a reason besides its going to 11 to change the previous number (1.9.0 will force next version to be 2.0.0)
We need new rule to be standard with industry
New Version that breaks an existing code would increase the first number
The middle number would increase if change didn’t break existing code
the third would be a patch
Schema Draft JSON version is what Swagger uses.
Great Meeting Everyone!
Up Next
Antitrust and Meeting minutes acceptance
Versioning of CIECA API
Action Items
Decisions
- Decision that we will have a validating schema; we will not worry about speed; but we want to make presentable for ease of implementations.
Required fields are important and must be validated.
Structure is important.
CIECA can validated length if it is critical to the message
CIECA will validate Code List Values
- Version of CIECA API is 3 parts. 1 version breaks existing code, 2 change with no break, 3 patch
Policy Version has 3 parts 1.0.0
CIECAs rule now is no one part can go above 10; so we do not have a reason besides its going to 11 to change the previous number (1.9.0 will force next version to be 2.0.0)
We need new rule to be standard with industry
New Version that breaks an existing code would increase the first number
The middle number would increase if change didn’t break existing code
the third would be a patch
Schema Draft JSON version is what Swagger uses.
Participants
Paulette Reed (Scribe)
Mike Hastings
Andy Bober
Brad Broerman
Dan Webster
Jeff Schroder
Participants in the meetings are noted for your information. If you have questions on the committee’s activities, please contact a recent attendee. Architecture Committee