Re: Summary of today's teleconference: JSON-LD and FHIR Ontology requirements

Hi David,

I think the answer to the first should be as follows:
- the extra information would be stripped
- the original instance would not be considered a conformant FHIR instance

In terms of the second, I think the answer would be the same as for a
non-RDF instance.  The consumer is allowed to reject the instance, but is
free to process it.  (And, as always, may choose to store or remove the
profile tag.)


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 Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:33 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>
> We might want to record a couple of issues around the points that were
> raised on today's call, to ensure that we track and address them:
> [[
> ISSUE: If non-FHIR data is added to some FHIR RDF data, what should happen
> to that extra information when converting back to FHIR XML/JSON?
>
> ISSUE: How should the FHIR RDF handle instance data that is invalid
> according to a profile with which it is tagged, given that some recipients
> may still choose to process that data?  (If it is merely treated as a
> logical inconsistency by a reasoner then that may interfere with the
> ability to usefully reason in other ways about the data.)
> ]]
>
> David
>
> On 12/30/2014 02:30 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
>> On today's teleconference we briefly discussed the potential for using
>> JSON-LD for FHIR instance data, so that the same serialization could be
>> processed both as regular JSON and as RDF.  Lloyd believes that if we
>> able to achieve this merely by the addition of an @context link, then it
>> could become a part of the standard FHIR JSON serialization.  David
>> Booth and Scott Marshall offered to investigate the potential use of
>> JSON-LD for this purpose.  Others are invited also.
>>
>> We then discussed draft FHIR ontology requirements (#1 and #3)
>> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements
>> There was general agreement about #3 (the need for round tripping), but
>> discussion about whether to merge #1 and #3, and whether and RDF
>> representation could be allowed to carry more information than a FHIR
>> XML/JSON representation.
>>
>> There was also discussion about what should happen if FHIR instance data
>> is tagged with a profile, but that instance data is invalid according to
>> that profile.  Lloyd remarked that it would be invalid, but a recipient
>> may nonetheless choose to process it in some way, and this may
>> complicate the desired treatment in the RDF semantics (rather than
>> merely being treated as a logical inconsistency).
>>
>> David requested specific proposals for wording changes to the draft
>> requirements, to help speed closure.
>>
>> The complete log of the meeting:
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/12/30-hcls-minutes.html
>>
>> Next week Frederik Malfait will review the PhUSE work.
>>
>> David Booth
>>
>
> ************************************************************
> ***********************
> 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
>