528 standalone sdpi editorial content update - #542
Conversation
Updated sdpi-supplement files to include a single file (all were previously commented out), to help reestablish a baseline branch.
Incorrect directory for include file.
"<<...>>" was not commented out.
After updating branch from master (locally) updated the changelog.
|
@JavierEspina & @d-gregorczyk -- Today I started working on this ... for real! Looking at the use of "supplement" in the files (e.g., with [#supplement_ ...], it looks like the usage is limited to only six files. So hopefully when I do the separation tomorrow, it is limited to just that and I can do the updates without mucking with too many files. Hopefully ... I did pull in the latest Master to this branch. So at least we are starting at the same baseline. |
|
2026.07.10 SDPi Friday - @JavierEspina @d-gregorczyk FWIW - Post history service and other updates to Master, this branch was successfully rebased to Master with only one change in the gitignore file. |
… Lists Initial triage of replacing references to "supplement" in all the sdpi-standard related files. This was a gross, brute force change, before going through the editorial content pass.
|
2026.07.15 Update Notes:
|
First pass at moving structural content from the standard to the supplement/ space.
|
2026.07.16 Update Notes:
<will see if it worked ... Friday!> |
Updated sdpi-supplement include files to fix undefined labels in the supplement ... fingers crossed
Numerous typo corrections (e.g., "ol1" => "vol1" TEST: Bringing in TF-0 content, do the files all need to be renamed and labels renamed IF it is only in the sdpi-supplement.adoc "tree" ???
Running a test on a single definition "term_conformity_assessment" to see if it can be scoped to the supplement folders and includes ... or not.
|
2026.07.20 Update Notes: Resolved to resolve build issues from Thursday 16 July (see above) - VERY VERY FRUSTRATED!!! @d-gregorczyk @PaulMartinsen -- In unraveling this onion of reference hell, I did an experiment that I think might have worked (it seems to have worked in my Fix #3 run. QUESTION: When we ended up building the sdpi-standard & sdpi-supplement outputs, IF I move all but the top-level sdpi-supplement.adoc files under the supplement/ folder AND if I simply copy a file like TF-0 Appendix D with definitions into that supplement/ folder tree - so that for the supplement, only stuff loaded from that top level document are processed ... none of the sdpi-standard tree files are included - is there any duplication of build content across the two document trees? IOW - if the same label (e.g., "term_conformity_assessment") is defined w/o supplement_term_conformity_assessment change, will there be any duplication errors or other issues when processing the source and rendering the supplement document? My initial experiment indicates that the answer is "you're OK doing that, Todd" and if so ... I've wasted a chunk of time BUT moving forward will be much faster! |
|
@d-gregorczyk @PaulMartinsen ... My "local" build, by running: .ci/asciidoc-converter/build_document.bat Resulted in an error: e: file:///C:/Docs/macStuff/Trusted%20Solutions/SDC/SDPi-FHIR/Repositories/DEV.SDPi/.ci/asciidoc-converter/src/test/kotlin/org/sdpi/ConvertUseCasesTest.kt:55:28 Unresolved reference 'useCaseReferences'. But since I wasn't doing it from a "green" set of code ... I assume that it will work better once I get my other push to build correctly. Right? |
Restarting the refactoring work with non-"supplement_" adaptations, but with scoping based on includes and the supplement/ folder tree
Sync'd -intro document with the standard version Updated both the glossary and declarations to not YET have references to non-included content
|
2026.07.20 Update Notes: After discussions with @d-gregorczyk & @PaulMartinsen regarding scope of AsciiDoc processing for each of the documents (sdpi-standard & sdpi-supplement), where we DON'T need to update the labels in the supplement tree to ensure that they are unique from the standard tree - RESTARTING REFACTORING to simply move items into the supplement/ folders with minimum scaffolding to resolve references. Notes:
So at the end of today, back to a direct path for updating the two source trees + local build (so I don't have to push-wait-cry ...) |
Primary update was to add more complete content to the supplement. Updated the punch lists for both.
|
2026.07.24 Update Notes:
NOTE: @PaulMartinsen @d-gregorczyk There was one issue that I couldn't figure out what the problem is:
IF I remove the "//" it breaks, but the build, but if I comment it out, everything works fine???, and I've verified that the label is defined. |
Standard updates to note at top re. proposed outline structure Supplement updates especially around additional "outline" structure + TF-1:2 migration & TF-3 content.
|
2026.07.28 Update Notes: Updates for this Tuesday ....
See build: Supplement Updates - Primarily for Structure #1385 |
Reflects major changes relating to:
(1) Changes in organization of content in the Standard ... especially ...
(2) Removing TF-0 Actors and refactoring all those references throughout the rest of the document.
|
2026.07.30 Update Notes:
|
|
2026.07.31 SDPi Friday Notes: Reviewed the current draft of this branch, discussing various refactoring options and issues. Issue: Refactoring out TF-0b Transactions appendix is editorially challenging - is there a Plan B?
It was decided to first merge #557 to master, updating this branch from that, and then merging this back to master. IF the merge of this branch is too challenging, then it will be postponed until after the 2.5 release. |
This push includes another major restructuring of the files in the standard tree, relocating and renaming many in a new "front-matter" directory, and greatly simplifying the root directory content.
|
2026.07.31 Update Notes:
|
|
@PaulMartinsen - Conformance Content Question: f you look at the latest push for this PR, you will see significant restructuring (moving, deleting, renaming) of the standard tree content. Basically:
Also added a Conformance clause at the END OF THE DOCUMENT but didn't move anything there yet. Too late in my day to do something that might REALLY break everything! But the intent is to move the ICS stuff from the References section to the Conformance section, leaving only the Referenced Standards + Bibliography in that section. PLEASE GIVE IT A BIT OF THOUGHT and let me know what you would like to see. ALSO if you think any of the current TF-3Z stuff might be moved to this new Conformance section. |
Focused on Vol 3 & reviewer instructions vs. supplement instructions + Conformance clause + References clauses
|
2026.08.03 Update Notes:
NOTE: This work will continue for 2-3 days, until the INFORMATIVE STANDALONE SDPI PACKAGE needs to be submitted with the SDPi 2.5 BALLOT ZIP file. (see related email from 3 August 2026 to Javier / David / Paul / Martin (... or something like that!). |
If I understood correctly, you are proposing moving (from the currently released version)
I recall some one saying some content (maybe referenced standards) wasn't in a logical place in the document because it had to be forward declared. Not sure I understood what was meant there but I didn't see any need for forward declarations in the semantic markup work. I wonder @d-gregorczyk , if moving referenced standards could impact that pre and post processors that do the link rewrites? That is, for example, do we know if the link rewriting will be broken if the referenced standards are moved to a different place in the document? Not necessarily a reason not to make this change; perhaps it is just the motivation to see if there's another way to solve the problem. That would have to be a 2.6 or 3.0 issue though. |
Major update to resolve conflicts with 2.5.0 Master branch, released earlier today. NOTE: The conflicts have been resolved; however, this branch updates has yet to be reviewed to ensure that the work pre-update was 100% maintained ... but it looks pretty good!
Moved additional content to the front-matter section, as well as organized it in a more clear manner.
|
2026.08.04 Update Notes:
|
Last minute updates in preparation for a work-in-progress version to be circulated for COMMENT ONLY during the HL7 SEP 2026 ballot cycle.
|
2026.08.05 Update Notes:
|
|
2026.08.07 SDPi Friday Notes:
Completion of the move will require more time and focus than is available this Friday midday! |
Completed the move of the use case content from appendix TF-1C to the new Use Cases section toward the front of the document.
|
2026.08.13 Update Notes:
@PaulMartinsen @d-gregorczyk :
If I change "===" to "==" ... bang! |
… document structure
Fixed undefined anchor in standard document.
Finished updating the new Use Cases section formatting (correcting the numbering) + moved some comments.
|
2026.08.14 Update Notes: SDPi Friday discussion today: Updates to the branch from today:
QUESTION: Should section numbers be added to non-Volume sections? |
3 participants
📑 Description
This PR provides an initial content separation between the SDPi Standard (standalone) and Supplement (to be integrated into the IHE DEV TF at some point). Though the changes are all editorial in nature, given the extensive label changes, they touch nearly every file in the project!
☑ Mandatory Tasks
The following aspects have been respected by the pull request assignee and at least one reviewer: