In the API specification we’d like to reference back to an API documentation source.
This requires us having a website where we can post the current API specification and it’s older versions.
Having a website, requires us having a domain.
facilityregistry.org is available
If there was a parent project to this, we could also put facilityregistry as a subdomain.
Please let me know your thoughts. I’d like to get this taken care of soon so we can have a site up by nov 12th.
Thanks,
Matt
Hi Matt
I’ve raised the same point some time back re the namespace. Agree its important to have a definitive reference point.
I personally would be in favour of facilityregistry.org as you have discovered is available.
I’m guessing I will be in a minority on this as I recall this has emerged in previous discussion and the preference will be for something hanging off the parent project.
I like the idea of the facility registry project as being potentially free standing rather than dependent on some larger venture.
Bob
On 8 November 2012 23:17, Matt Berg mlberg@gmail.com wrote:
In the API specification we’d like to reference back to an API documentation source.
This requires us having a website where we can post the current API specification and it’s older versions.
Having a website, requires us having a domain.
facilityregistry.org is available
If there was a parent project to this, we could also put facilityregistry as a subdomain.
Please let me know your thoughts. I’d like to get this taken care of soon so we can have a site up by nov 12th.
Thanks,
Matt
–
I echo the sentiment.
We can always do a redirect to a parent project subdomain in the future if seems like it makes sense.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Matt
I’ve raised the same point some time back re the namespace. Agree its important to have a definitive reference point.
I personally would be in favour of facilityregistry.org as you have discovered is available.
I’m guessing I will be in a minority on this as I recall this has emerged in previous discussion and the preference will be for something hanging off the parent project.
I like the idea of the facility registry project as being potentially free standing rather than dependent on some larger venture.
Bob
–
On 8 November 2012 23:17, Matt Berg mlberg@gmail.com wrote:
In the API specification we’d like to reference back to an API documentation source.
This requires us having a website where we can post the current API specification and it’s older versions.
Having a website, requires us having a domain.
facilityregistry.org is available
If there was a parent project to this, we could also put facilityregistry as a subdomain.
Please let me know your thoughts. I’d like to get this taken care of soon so we can have a site up by nov 12th.
Thanks,
Matt
–
We can (and should) have both.
I do want to see the facility registry community track within the context of the overall health information exchange architecture (which has at least 5 more components/technologies), and as such would like to have domain names consistent with that relationship:
ie, http://facility.openhie.me
But this work should also stand on it’s own.
We likely will resource one group to do the web development for all new content, but we will give flexibility to each group to structure/brand/style as they’d like… ideally, we find consistent themes across them, but don’t want to constrain the innovation/working styles of the various communities as they form.
We will be talking about this at next week’s meeting (which a few of you on this list will be at).
Say the word, and I’ll have this domain purchased (there’s no need for you all to pay for this, or start having to take on the maintenance of this kind of stuff).
-Paul
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Matt
I’ve raised the same point some time back re the namespace. Agree its important to have a definitive reference point.
I personally would be in favour of facilityregistry.org as you have discovered is available.
I’m guessing I will be in a minority on this as I recall this has emerged in previous discussion and the preference will be for something hanging off the parent project.
I like the idea of the facility registry project as being potentially free standing rather than dependent on some larger venture.
Bob
–
On 8 November 2012 23:17, Matt Berg mlberg@gmail.com wrote:
In the API specification we’d like to reference back to an API documentation source.
This requires us having a website where we can post the current API specification and it’s older versions.
Having a website, requires us having a domain.
facilityregistry.org is available
If there was a parent project to this, we could also put facilityregistry as a subdomain.
Please let me know your thoughts. I’d like to get this taken care of soon so we can have a site up by nov 12th.
Thanks,
Matt
–