- From: Timothy W. Cook <tim@mlhim.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:50:49 -0200
- To: Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>
- Cc: Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>, Vipul Kashyap <kashyap.vipul@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, HL7 ITS <its@lists.hl7.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+=OU3XSMrR2oc2QicnAD9+oSYPogFu8hkyBm1U9HAwrKo_96w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com> wrote: > Hi Tony, > > The RDF instances would always reference the standard resource and data > type profiles. They wouldn't ever reference narrower profiles, except > possibly at the top level. I.e. If I've got an address, the instance will > always refer to that as hl7:Address, never hl7NL:postalAddress, even if the > hl7NL:postalAddress constraints apply. The knowledge that it's an > hl7NL:postalAddress will be specified in the class ontology based on a > profile declared by the instance. The only profiles receivers ever need to > understand are the universal resource and data type level profiles. You > don't need to know the specific narrow profile used by the author in order > to parse an instance. > > Interesting. So how then does a (for example) receiver of lab data 10 years from now know what reference ranges were in place at the time the data was recorded? This is most certainly a requirement for longitudinal clinical decision support. Thanks, Tim > Business and resource identifiers in the instance data are unique globally > (though we may have some fun dealing with the notions of "base" and "local" > identifiers inside a bundle. . .) I don't understand how using RDF can aid > in identity resolution given that we're not conveying any more information > in RDF than we are in XML or JSON. (Nor are we conveying any more > information in OWL than we are in the JSON or XML representations of > Profile.) > > > Lloyd > > -------------------------------------- > Lloyd McKenzie > > +1-780-993-9501 > > > > Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions > expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor > those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi Lloyd, >> >> I see the miscommunication. OWL ontologies can contain individuals, >> classes, object properties etc. they are not just the model or metadata. >> >> >> >> I am referring to an ontology which contains only the individual data and >> refers to types in the Profile ontology. The Profile would be another >> ontology and would not be sent. >> >> So the identifiers in the instance data are unique within the ontology >> and it is therefore like the namespace of the source system. The total >> ontology of the source system is their EHR without considering records >> imported from other sources. >> >> >> >> I have assumed that Profiles are created and shared between system owners >> who want to interoperate. There must be some governance to them. >> >> >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com] >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:28 PM >> >> *To:* Anthony Mallia >> *Cc:* Vipul Kashyap; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS >> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C >> HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.) >> >> >> >> Hi Tony, >> >> >> >> I don't think I'm following. There should be no need for >> custodian-specific ontologies. The sender never needs to identify a >> profile in the instance. Some senders may choose to specify a profile in >> the instance (or even 20 different profiles in the instance), but the >> sender isn't required to pay any attention to any of them. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure how any FHIR-based ontology would help to support >> de-duplication. >> >> >> >> Profiles aren't just created by WGs. Profiles are any statement of >> restrictions and extensions that can be associated with a resource or data >> type - they can be created by anyone. >> >> >> >> The FHIR RDF message will have to contain *exactly* the same information >> that is in the JSON and XML instances - no more, no less. Otherwise we >> can't properly round-trip. If you want to use the SNOMED ontology with an >> instance, then you can import it yourself - it doesn't need to be imported >> by the instance. >> >> >> >> >> >> Lloyd >> >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Lloyd McKenzie >> >> +1-780-993-9501 >> >> >> >> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions >> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor >> those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Lloyd, >> >> >> >> It will be worth more discussion on the ontology structures. >> >> >> >> At the profile instance level (the FHIR RDF message) the ontologies are >> probably associated with the custodian of the record – they assigned the >> identities (unique within their ontology). When you query and aggregate >> FHIR RDF records from multiple custodians you know where the record came >> from and may have the same subject due to equivalence of the patients in >> the different ontologies (patient matching). A custodian based ontology >> allows the recipient to perform efficient de-duplication if they are >> caching the records. >> >> >> >> The Profile ontology has been negotiated in a WG (the custodian) and has >> its own ontology (and version). I am not sure if this needs to be single >> FHIR Resource or can be across many Resources. >> >> >> >> The Terminology ontologies come from the terminology custodians. E.g. >> IHTSDO and WHO >> >> >> >> If you don’t use the ontologies outside the FHIR RDF message then >> redundant information needs to be put into the FHIR RDF message to be able >> to round trip with the XML. If you are using OWL tools then importing the >> other ontologies makes a more comprehensive view and graph aggregation is >> natural. >> >> >> >> I don’t see why we can’t have it both ways. >> >> >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com] >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:31 PM >> *To:* Anthony Mallia >> *Cc:* Vipul Kashyap; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C >> HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.) >> >> >> >> Hi Tony, >> >> >> >> Every profile instance will be its own ontology and will import the >> "base" ontology it's built on top of. All instances will be bound to the >> base resource profile, but I think we should be cautious about importing >> referenced profiles. >> >> >> >> In FHIR you don't need to reference a profile in order to understand >> meaning (unlike with something like CDA). If you stripped out all profile >> references from an instance, you'd be able to reconstitute them (though in >> some cases, doing so might be computationally intensive). Certainly in the >> instance you would generally indicate what terminologies were used for >> coded elements, but that doesn't mean you want the ontologies for all of >> those terminologies to be present when you're trying to reason about an >> instance. As Peter pointed, out, some ontologies are rather large, so you >> should only bring them in if you need them. And there will certainly be >> terminologies referenced in instances for which the receiver doesn't have >> an ontology at all, so presuming to include an import just because the code >> system was referenced would actually often break things. >> >> >> >> >> >> Lloyd >> >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Lloyd McKenzie >> >> +1-780-993-9501 >> >> >> >> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions >> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor >> those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com> >> wrote: >> >> Lloyd, >> >> Each Profile ( or group of profiles) would be in its own ontology which >> might import the raw FHIR type ontology and restrict/extend it. This means >> that when we bind from the instance to the type, the type is in the named >> profile ontology (unambiguous). >> >> All importing in my approach is done by off the shelf OWL tools which are >> an additional layer I guess. >> >> I don’t understand how you can be interoperable if you don’t know the >> profile being used and the terminology terms referenced. >> >> >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com] >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:00 PM >> >> >> *To:* Vipul Kashyap >> *Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS >> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C >> HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.) >> >> >> >> Hi Vipul, >> >> >> >> Yes, we'll be creating two different forms. Instances will be expressed >> in RDF - and round-trippable between the JSON and XML syntaxes. At that >> level, all you'll have is data - no "knowledge". Profiles we will also >> convert to RDFS/OWL/something which will reflect things such as constraints >> on instances, vocabulary bindings, etc. We may even define extensions on >> Profile which allow us to capture additional information (e.g. hierarchy) >> and represent that in our semantic web expressions as well. (We should >> never include anything in our OWL expressions that isn't derivable from a >> Profile instance because it's the Profile that is the source of truth.) >> >> >> >> @Tony: Definitely agree they'll be separate ontologies. The instance >> ontology might import the profile ontology if the instance happens to be >> tagged with a given profile, but my recommendation would be to leave the >> importing to be done by an additional layer - one that knows what profiles >> and code systems you actually care (and have access to). Relevant profiles >> may not be referenced and not all referenced code systems will be known. >> >> >> >> >> >> Lloyd >> >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Lloyd McKenzie >> >> +1-780-993-9501 >> >> >> >> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions >> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor >> those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Vipul Kashyap <kashyap.vipul@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the feedback and clarification – Looks like we will have to >> work at two different layers: >> >> >> >> 1. The syntactic translation from FHIR XML/JSON to RDF/OWL – >> >> 2. Enrichment of the RDF/OWL representation via ontologies and OWL >> axioms.. which is where I believe would provide the value due to >> inferencing in a wide variety of applications –e.g., CDS, Clinical >> Documentation, Quality Metrics, etc. >> >> >> >> Am I correct in assuming that we are focusing on (1) in this group – >> Shouldn’t we try to do (2) as well? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> ---Vipul >> >> >> >> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com] >> *Sent:* Saturday, December 20, 2014 6:15 PM >> >> >> *To:* Vipul Kashyap >> *Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS >> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C >> HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.) >> >> >> >> Well, for FHIR at a minimum, you must be able to round-trip instances. >> And what will appear in the JSON and XML instances is the code + code >> system (and often multiple code-code system pairs). Often, the code + >> code system won't even link to an ontology that's known by the receiver. >> And if we want to be able to convert v2 or v3 instances, what appears over >> the wire there is the code + code system too. All knowledge of what the >> binding is for an element is carried outside the instance. >> >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Lloyd McKenzie >> >> +1-780-993-9501 >> >> >> >> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions >> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor >> those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Vipul Kashyap <kashyap.vipul@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Not clear about the reason for this design decision – Has it been >> discussed and agreed upon by the members of this group? >> >> Or is it the case that if we adopt a different approach – it will not be >> accorded official status by the FHIR folks? >> >> >> >> BTW – It might turn out that code system + code approach is indeed better >> – but I would love to see use cases and examples illustrating this… >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> ---Vipul >> >> >> >> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com] >> *Sent:* Saturday, December 20, 2014 6:00 PM >> *To:* Vipul Kashyap >> *Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C >> HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.) >> >> >> >> From a FHIR (or v2 or v3) perspective, the linkage will *have* to be by >> code + code system. That's what appears in the instance and the RDF >> representations will need to be driven purely based on what appears in the >> instances. The code + code system can be used to infer the concept >> represented by the code - with all of its associated properties and >> relationships. Essentially "all v2/v3/FHIR elements with a code = [SNOMED >> Code X] and a code system of SNOMED_CT are specializations of the SNOMED >> Concept X". >> >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Lloyd McKenzie >> >> +1-780-993-9501 >> >> >> >> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions >> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor >> those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Vipul Kashyap <kashyap.vipul@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> VK> Partially agree with you. Another reason for taking up RDF/OWL >> representation is to make these descriptions (business, clinical) user >> friendly. I have added this requirement to the wiki page. >> >> Then we have a different notion of "user friendly" :> The RDF syntax >> will almost certainly be less friendly for consumption than the XML >> syntax. And in the end, the users shouldn't be consuming any of the >> syntaxes directly - they'll be consuming interfaces that systems use to >> expose the content, not the syntax directly. >> >> >> >> VK> I think one of the key goals of a semantic representation is to make >> the content user friendly and also “executable” at the same time. Whereas >> it definitely doesn’t make sense to expose the underlying RDF/XML >> serializations to the business/clinical users, there has been work e.g., >> triples, Manchester OWL syntax which can be leveraged to make the OWL >> expressions understandable to informatics users. >> >> >> >> I don't expect we'll see broad uptake of the RDF syntax. It will remain >> a specialized syntax for those wishing to use SPARQL, make inferences, >> etc. That's a small fraction of the overall community. However, if we >> build it into the reference implementations, it'll be straightforward for >> most servers to expose the RDF to those clients that actually need it. >> >> >> >> So, we should definitely enumerate some of the use cases and perhaps >> flesh them out – so that they can be used to motivate the requirements – >> e.g., Clinical Decision Support, Quality Metrics, Clinical Trial Protocols, >> etc. >> >> Especially for folks who are not familiar with FHIR – the requirements >> focusing on the RDF syntax are rather opaque and the value for the broader >> community is not evident. >> >> VK> I am in agreement with your first approach. One approach is to >> model both FHIR Resources and Terminology Concepts as classes. For e.g.., >> we could model “Condition” as a class with “Diabetes” as a subclass with >> some kind of relationship (sameAs, subClassOf) between FHIR:Diabetes and >> Snomed:Diabetes, MedDRA:Diabetes, ICD11:Diabetes >> >> The relationship would be that the concept represented by >> Condition.code was a specialization of Snomed:Diabetes, etc. (though it's >> unlikely the name would be that user-friendly). It certainly wouldn't be a >> link to the overall class. >> >> >> >> VK> I think one of the design choices we have to make is whether Snomed >> is a collection of codes or whether it’s better modeled as a set of classes >> with properties and relationships and perhaps instances as well. >> >> I understand that the HL7 efforts have historically looked at the >> Information Model and Terminology as two different artifacts that can be >> “bound” together – but viewing both Terminological concepts and Information >> Model >> >> Entities as classes provdes a common meta-model to facilitate the merge. >> >> >> >> Just my 2 cents. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> ---Vipul >> >> >> >> >> >> ---Vipul >> >> >> >> (Feel free to add your thoughts to the wiki page.) >> >> >> >> >> >> Lloyd >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Lloyd McKenzie >> >> +1-780-993-9501 >> >> >> >> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions >> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor >> those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Vipul Kashyap <kashyap.vipul@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Good list, Lloyd. Would like to suggest some more additions (apologies if >> these have already been suggested). >> >> >> >> · Clearly articulate the value of the new RDF/RDFS/OWL >> representation over the current XML/JSON representation >> >> · Enablement of OWL/RDFS inference – so we could identify use >> cases that cannot be easily done based on the XML/JSON representation >> >> · A common OWL/RDFS representation for information model >> elements *and* medical terminology concepts. >> >> >> >> Thoughts. Suggestions? >> >> >> >> ---Vipul >> >> >> >> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:36 PM >> *To:* David Booth >> *Cc:* w3c semweb HCLS; its@lists.hl7.org >> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C >> HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.) >> >> >> >> I think we need to define our objectives for the RDF representation. >> Mine are as follows: >> >> >> >> 1. It must be possible to round-trip from XML/JSON through RDF >> representation >> >> * This includes retaining information about order of repeating elements >> >> * Needs to allow for extensions where-ever they can appear, including >> simple types (date, boolean, etc.) >> >> 2. We want to be able to represent instances as RDF and Profiles as >> OWL/RDFS >> >> 3. Syntax needs to be "safe" when dealing with modifier extensions >> >> 4. Syntax should support vocabulary bindings to code, Coding and >> CodeableConcept - including dealing with extensible value sets and >> multi-code system value sets >> >> 5. Syntax should enforce constraints that are representable in RDF (i.e. >> schema constraints, regular expressions, etc.) >> >> 6. In the RDFS/OWL, should expose at least minimal annotation information >> for display >> >> >> >> >> >> Lloyd >> >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Lloyd McKenzie >> >> +1-780-993-9501 >> >> >> >> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions >> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor >> those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: >> >> I'm so sorry I forgot to send these out last Tuesday, but here are draft >> minutes from our call, with Eric Prud'hommeaux reviewing his FHIR ontology >> approach: >> http://www.w3.org/2014/12/02-hcls-minutes.html >> and below in plain text. >> >> Also, as a reminder, tomorrow's call (Tuesday) will continue with Claude >> Nanjo reviewing his FHIR ontology approach. >> >> Thanks, >> David Booth >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> [1]W3C >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/ >> >> - DRAFT - >> >> Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Teleconference >> >> 02 Dec 2014 >> >> See also: [2]IRC log >> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/12/02-hcls-irc >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> Bryn_Rhodes, Cati, Claude_Nanjo, David_Booth, EricP, >> Guoqian, Hans_Cools, Ingeborg, Joshua_Phillips, >> Kerstin_Forsberg, Marc_Twagirumukiza, Neda, Paul_Knapp, >> TimW, Tony_Mallia, Charlie_Mead, egonw_(IRC_only?), >> Scott_Marshall, Patricia, Rob_Hausam, Vassil_(IRC_only?) >> >> Regrets >> Chair >> David Booth (and Paul Knapp) >> >> Scribe >> dbooth >> >> Contents >> >> * [3]Topics >> 1. [4]Approve Minutes of previous meetings >> 2. [5]Action Review >> 3. [6]FHIR Ontology Review >> * [7]Summary of Action Items >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2014 >> >> <ericP> trackbot, start meeting >> >> <trackbot> Meeting: Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences >> Interest Group Teleconference >> >> <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2014 >> >> <ericP> oops >> >> <TimW> TimW is from +1.919.767... >> >> <RHausam> RHausam is 801.949.1556 >> >> <Claude> [8]https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/157514853 >> >> [8] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/157514853 >> >> <Claude> Please join our GoToMeeting >> >> Approve Minutes of previous meetings >> >> Nov 18: >> [9]http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_ >> 20141118 >> >> [9] >> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20141118 >> >> Nov 25: >> [10]http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes >> _20141125 >> >> [10] >> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20141125 >> >> Nov 18 minutes unanimously approved. >> >> Nov 25 minutes unanimously approved. >> >> Action Review >> >> <scribe> ACTION: ericP to set up tracker [recorded in >> [11]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action01 -- >> PENDING >> >> [11] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action01 >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Set up tracker [recorded in >> [12]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action01 -- >> pending [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2014-12-09]. >> >> [12] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action01 >> >> <scribe> ACTION: Tony to find out more details about how iCat >> handles ICD-11 ont and report back [recorded in >> [13]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action01 -- >> PENDING >> >> [13] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action01 >> >> <trackbot> Error finding 'Tony'. You can review and register >> nicknames at <[14]http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/users>. >> >> [14] http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/users >> >> <scribe> ACTION: Guoqian to figure out whether he can share URI >> conventions for ICD-11 [recorded in >> [15]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07 -- >> PENDING >> >> [15] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07 >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Figure out whether he can share >> uri conventions for icd-11 [recorded in >> [16]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07 -- >> pending [on Guoqian Jiang - due 2014-12-09]. >> >> [16] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07 >> >> <Claude> For those who just joined IRC, we also have a >> GoToMeeting at: >> >> <Claude> [17]https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/157514853 >> >> [17] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/157514853 >> >> <scribe> ACTION: Kerstin and Ingeborg to prepare a status and >> future state ideas for PhUSE-FDA work [recorded in >> [18]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action05 -- >> PENDING >> >> [18] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action05 >> >> <trackbot> Error finding 'Kerstin'. You can review and register >> nicknames at <[19]http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/users>. >> >> [19] http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/users >> >> <scribe> ACTION: Eric to establish/make a wiki page for C-CDA >> RDF representations work [recorded in >> [20]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action06 -- >> PENDING >> >> [20] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action06 >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Establish/make a wiki page for >> c-cda rdf representations work [recorded in >> [21]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action06 -- >> pending [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2014-12-09]. >> >> [21] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action06 >> >> <scribe> ACTION: Eric and Joshua to report on C-CDA RDF >> representations work plan [recorded in >> [22]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action07 -- >> PENDING >> >> [22] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action07 >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - And joshua to report on c-cda rdf >> representations work plan [recorded in >> [23]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action07 -- >> pending [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2014-12-09]. >> >> [23] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action07 >> >> Joshua: Sent email describing a use case. Will add to wiki >> page. >> >> <scribe> ACTION: Tony and Rob to report their plan on >> High-level concept mapping to RDF work [recorded in >> [24]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action08 -- >> PENDING >> >> [24] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action08 >> >> <trackbot> Error finding 'Tony'. You can review and register >> nicknames at <[25]http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/users>. >> >> [25] http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/users >> >> <scribe> ACTION: Tony and all to decide on a wiki for Term Info >> work [recorded in >> [26]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action09] -- >> PENDING >> >> [26] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action09] >> >> <trackbot> Error finding 'Tony'. You can review and register >> nicknames at <[27]http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/users>. >> >> [27] http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/users >> >> <scribe> ACTION: Guoqian to figure out whether he can share URI >> conventions for ICD-11 [recorded in >> [28]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07] >> >> [28] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Figure out whether he can share >> uri conventions for icd-11 [recorded in >> [29]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07] >> [on Guoqian Jiang - due 2014-12-09]. >> >> [29] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07] >> >> <scribe> [PENDING] >> >> FHIR Ontology Review >> >> <Claude> Please use GoToMeeting only for video >> >> [30]https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/157514853 >> >> [30] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/157514853 >> >> Access Code: 157-514-853 >> >> Eric's slides: -> >> [31]http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/1125-fhir-rdf-egp/ FHIR-RDF >> >> [31] http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/1125-fhir-rdf-egp/ >> >> Eric: Our goal was to let anything in FHIR XML be translated >> into RDF. >> ... We wrote something that read the XML definition files and >> produced something that maps the XML to RDF. >> ... Python code reads the json definition files and spits out >> XML, being the parts that we need of the FHIR spec. >> ... "subs" is what is allowed inside a FHIR resource. >> ... effectively the attributes of a resource. >> ... Then we embedded that in an XSLT script, and hand edited >> the foot of it. >> ... The stuff we wrote into the footer of the XSLT says that >> for a particular construct in the XML instance data, there's >> special handling, such as URLs for identifiers. >> >> David: How does the fact that it is an atom feed affect the >> interpretatinon of the XML? >> >> Eric: It leaves some other graph stuff superimposed on it. >> >> Marc: Re datatypes, you used FHIR value, but the value itself >> looks like it is a string. >> ... If it is a string, then reasoners cannot do much with it. >> >> Eric: Datatype values are showing up as literals. >> >> Marc: Another is that a date is just a string, not an xsd:date. >> ... On slide 2 >> >> Eric: Ideally it should have the datatype stuck on the end of >> it. There's a tension between having the datatype on the >> fhir:value and having it on a blank node. >> ... The natural RDF-ish way to do it would be using >> xsd:datetime. >> ... Need to decide which of these ways will be most palatable >> to RDF folks versus native FHIR folks. >> ... Sometimes these things are not just datetimes in FHIR. Need >> to make it as simple as possible and no simpler. >> >> Guoqian: Is a different URI being used for the namespaces? Will >> it cause problems when you use SPARQL across different models? >> >> Eric: I tested some of this. I stuck a bunch of these >> namespaces together, and I believe we've addressed your >> concern. >> >> David: Is the datatype issue due to the fact that datatypes are >> extensible in FHIR? >> >> Eric: Maybe. RDF needs to be monotonic. >> >> Paul: Modifying extensions can appear only in the roots of >> classes (considering the complex type as a class) >> >> Eric: The XSLT footer has the custom code for extensions. >> >> Paul: We did that to limit what you need to examine, to find >> out if there is a modifying extension. >> >> Claude: I think you can have modifying extensions on the root >> type and anything that is defined from the root type. >> >> ISSUE: FHIR Modifying extensions and monotonicity >> >> <trackbot> Created ISSUE-1 - Fhir modifying extensions and >> monotonicity. Please complete additional details at >> <[32]http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/issues/1/edit>. >> >> [32] http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/issues/1/edit >> >> Eric: Example here may not be up to date. Anyone know? >> >> Paul: the dev site has DSTU 2. >> >> Eric: Another script generates the ShEx definitions from the >> FHIR spec. >> ... and the ShEx is used to generate FHIR XML back again from >> FHIR RDF. >> ... Slide 7 is showing how to take C-CDA in RDF and producing >> FHIR RDF. >> >> Guoqian: The result prefix is fhir but should be patient. >> >> Eric: Yes, you're right. That can be fixed in the ShEx. >> >> Tony: Sort of verbatim translation. The difference is maybe >> target audience style -- a style that is good for the general >> tools used in RDF. Only difference is the end style of RDF. >> ... Establishing closure between FHIR ontology and SNOMED-CT >> would need to happen. Main difference is in the final RDF >> style. >> >> <pknapp> Zakim: Have to leave for another meeting, thx, great >> work. >> >> Eric: Will need to need to be a balance. >> ... Once we have transliterated, what we map to our dream >> ontology. May want to balance how much is wedged into the XSLT >> and how much into the interpretive dance later. >> >> Claude: Might want a low level FHIR ont and a higher level FHIR >> ont both. >> >> David: I kind of like the auto-generated aspect of this >> approach. >> >> <vassil> чуит >> >> ADJOURNED >> >> <vassil> quit >> >> <ericP> [33]coding mapping example >> >> [33] >> https://www.w3.org/wiki/HCLS/ClinicalObservationsInteroperability/FDATherapeuticAreaOntologies#codeAndSystemToIRI >> >> <ericP> (for next week) >> >> <vassil> exit >> >> Summary of Action Items >> >> [PENDING] ACTION: Eric and Joshua to report on C-CDA RDF >> representations work plan [recorded in >> [34]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action07] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Eric to establish/make a wiki page for C-CDA >> RDF representations work [recorded in >> [35]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action06] >> [PENDING] ACTION: ericP to set up tracker [recorded in >> [36]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action01] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Guoqian to figure out whether he can share >> URI conventions for ICD-11 [recorded in >> [37]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Kerstin and Ingeborg to prepare a status and >> future state ideas for PhUSE-FDA work [recorded in >> [38]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action05] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Tony and all to decide on a wiki for Term >> Info work [recorded in >> [39]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action09] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Tony and Rob to report their plan on >> High-level concept mapping to RDF work [recorded in >> [40]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action08] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Tony to find out more details about how iCat >> handles ICD-11 ont and report back [recorded in >> [41]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action01] >> >> [34] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action07 >> [35] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action06 >> [36] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action01 >> [37] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/25-hcls-minutes.html#action07 >> [38] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action05 >> [39] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action09 >> [40] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action08 >> [41] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/18-hcls-minutes.html#action01 >> >> [End of minutes] >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> >> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [42]scribe.perl version >> 1.140 ([43]CVS log) >> $Date: 2014-12-02 17:30:25 $ >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> [42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm >> [43] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ >> >> Scribe.perl diagnostic output >> >> [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.] >> This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 >> Check for newer version at [44]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ >> scribe/ >> >> [44] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ >> >> Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) >> >> No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: dbooth >> Inferring Scribes: dbooth >> Default Present: DBooth, +1.919.767.aaaa, ericP, rhausam, TimW, Joshua_P >> hillips, +1.202.528.aabb, charlie, +1.469.226.aacc, Tony, Neda, patricia >> , Mark_Twagirumukiza, Kerstin_Forsberg, Cati, Kerstin, +1.801.368.aadd, >> +1.604.250.aaee, Bryn_Rhodes, +31.62.427.aaff, mscottm, Guoqian, +1.608. >> 310.aagg, vassil, +41.78.847.aahh, [IPcaller] >> >> WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Bryn_Rhodes, Cati, >> Claude_Nanjo, David_Booth, EricP, Guoqian, Hans_Cools, Ingeborg, Joshua_ >> Phillips, Kerstin_Forsberg, Marc_Twagirumukiza, Neda, Paul_Knapp, TimW, >> Tony_Mallia, Charlie_Mead, egonw, (IRC, only?), Scott_Marshall, Patricia >> , Rob_Hausam, Vassil, (IRC, only?)) >> Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the lis >> t, >> such as: <dbooth> Present+ Bryn_Rhodes, Cati, Claude_Nanjo, David_Booth, >> EricP, Guoqian, Hans_Cools, Ingeborg, Joshua_Phillips, Kerstin_Forsberg >> , Marc_Twagirumukiza, Neda, Paul_Knapp, TimW, Tony_Mallia, Charlie_Mead, >> egonw_(IRC_only?), Scott_Marshall, Patricia, Rob_Hausam, Vassil_(IRC_on >> ly?) >> >> Present: Bryn_Rhodes Cati Claude_Nanjo David_Booth EricP Guoqian Hans_Co >> ols Ingeborg Joshua_Phillips Kerstin_Forsberg Marc_Twagirumukiza Neda Pa >> ul_Knapp TimW Tony_Mallia Charlie_Mead egonw_(IRC_only?) Scott_Marshall >> Patricia Rob_Hausam Vassil_(IRC_only?) >> Found Date: 02 Dec 2014 >> Guessing minutes URL: [45]http://www.w3.org/2014/12/02-hcls-minutes.html >> People with action items: all eric ericp guoqian ingeborg joshua kerstin >> rob tony >> >> [45] http://www.w3.org/2014/12/02-hcls-minutes.html >> >> >> [End of [46]scribe.perl diagnostic output] >> >> [46] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm >> >> >> >> *********************************************************************************** >> Manage subscriptions - http://www.HL7.org/listservice >> View archives - http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its >> Unsubscribe - >> http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=lloyd@lmckenzie.com&list=its >> Terms of use - >> http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules >> >> >> >> >> >> -- ============================================ Timothy Cook LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 16:51:20 UTC