Matt Marshall

Closed as this has been fixed.

Closing as this has been fixed in 3.0 (at the latest!)

I am closing this because: * 3.0 appears to have refactored this towards using taxonomies, while there remains explicit `eligibility_description`, `maximum_age`, and `minimum_age` fields which meet the modelling needs described....

Closing as I think we've addressed this in 3.0 via the move to JSON Schema; each phone, contact, and address have `ids` and are nested in arrays in other objects....

I am tentatively closing this, because my key takeaways from this thread was the need for a dedicated model (table or JSON Schema) for `service_area`. I'm not sure when it...

I am closing this as I believe 3.0 had quite a lot of discussion around taxonomies, so this issue may no longer be relevant. Please re-open it if you believe...

I'm closing this as no longer relevant, since as of 3.0 HSDS is a JSON standard. If anyone feels differently, please re-open the issue :-)

I am closing this based on 3.0 having in the `phone.type` description: > Indicates the type of phone service, drawing from the RFC6350 list of types (text (for SMS), voice,...

Closing as I cannot find reference to these enums anywhere in 3.0 via grep or the schema reference docs. I believe that since 3.0 was a MAJOR upgrade, these have...

I am closing this since RRULE is implemented in the current version (3.0, and looks like it was adopted before that?) @devinbalkind I think some of the [guidance one exceptional...