Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

All FHIR resources, value sets, etc. defined by HL7 have unique URIs, all
rooted in "http://hl7.org/fhir/".  No-one else can define resources or data
types.  Profiles and value sets can be defined by anyone with any base URI.


*Lloyd McKenzie*Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com
M: +1 587-334-1110 <1-587-334-1110>
W: gevityinc.com


*GEVITY**Informatics for a healthier world *

CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the exclusive
use of its intended recipients. If you have received this communication by
error, please notify the sender and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it*.*

NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions
expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance positions

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Jiang, Guoqian, M.D., Ph.D. <
Jiang.Guoqian@mayo.edu> wrote:

>   If we use a single namespace, do we assume the names of FHIR
> resources/elements/values are globally unique?
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  -Guoqian
>   From: Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>
> Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 11:22 AM
> To: Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>
> Cc: Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com>, David Booth <
> david@dbooth.org>, HL7 ITS <its@lists.hl7.org>, "owner-its@lists.hl7.org"
> <owner-its@lists.hl7.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
> Resent-From: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 11:23 AM
>
>   Hi Tony,
>
>  I wouldn't treat structure definitions as distinct from any other.  The
> "vs" namespace is just for FHIR-defined valuesets.  There will be 100s of
> value set namespaces out in the real world once more people start
> profiling, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend giving prefixes to any of
> them.  They don't mean anything special.
>
>
> *Lloyd McKenzie *Consultant, Information Technology Services
> Gevity Consulting Inc.
>
>  E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com
> M: +1 587-334-1110 <1-587-334-1110>
> W: gevityinc.com
>
>
> *GEVITY **Informatics for a healthier world *
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the exclusive
> use of its intended recipients. If you have received this communication by
> error, please notify the sender and delete the message without copying or
> disclosing it*.*
>
> NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions
> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
> my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance positions
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Marc,
>>
>> There is probably some right balance between having the prefix state the
>> namespace or to have the dot notation as in FHIR.
>>
>> However there are some base FHIR URIs which might deserve prefixes:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://hl7.org/fhir/structuredefinition/ (when the FHIR website moves
>> there)
>>
>> http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/ which supports the valuesets
>>
>>
>>
>> There may be more in FHIR that I have not yet discovered and Lloyd will
>> know what they are.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Marc Twagirumukiza [mailto:marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2015 3:42 AM
>> *To:* Lloyd McKenzie
>> *Cc:* David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-its@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS
>> *Subject:* Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
>>
>>
>>
>> I fully support having a single "fhir" prefix. This will help at 'FHIR
>> ontology' development level with making reusable predicates.
>> Also at instance level it would help to include something that identifies
>> order for array elements
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> * Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare*
>> Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
>> T  +32 3444 8188 | M  +32 499 713 300
>>
>> http://www.agfahealthcare.com
>> http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> Click on link to read important disclaimer:
>> http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer
>>
>>
>>
>> From:        Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>
>> To:        David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
>> Cc:        w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, HL7 ITS <
>> its@lists.hl7.org>
>> Date:        04/03/2015 19:33
>> Subject:        Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
>> Sent by:        owner-its@lists.hl7.org
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Several comments:
>> 1. I'm not clear on the benefit of defining prefixes for every resource
>> and type.  The alternative is a single "fhir" prefix
>> 2. We need to include something in the instances that identifies order
>> for array elements
>> 3. Do we need to declare type everywhere?  Quite often, the type can be
>> inferred from the context and the property name by consulting the
>> resource/data type definition ontology.  Explicitly listing types
>> everywhere adds verbosity to the instances and also adds complexity to the
>> conversion process
>> 4. Not sure why we have nodes underneath "div".  Can't we just have "div"
>> be of type string for our purposes?
>>
>> Additional things to add to our example:
>> - a nested structure (e.g. DiagnosticReport.image)
>> - a reference to an external resource (outside the bundle) and reference
>> to something within the bundle (local, full reference-version independent,
>> full reference-version dependent)
>> - a codeable concept with multiple codings
>> - a coding with version declared
>> - a coding with valueset declared
>> - a coding with code but no system
>> - an instance of identifier
>> - an "id" attribute on an element
>> - a reference to the same id attribute (likely from an extension)
>> - an extension with a simple type
>> - an extension with a complex type
>> - an extension that repeats and has multiple values
>> - an element that is an instance a choice (element name is something[x])
>> - a reference to Questionnaire or one of the other resources that has
>> recursion.  Could just be added to the bundle
>>
>> *Lloyd McKenzie*
>> Consultant, Information Technology Services
>> Gevity Consulting Inc.
>>
>>  E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com
>> M: +1 587-334-1110 <1-587-334-1110>
>> W: gevityinc.com
>>
>> *GEVITY*
>> * Informatics for a healthier world *
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the
>> exclusive use of its intended recipients. If you have received this
>> communication by error, please notify the sender and delete the message
>> without copying or disclosing it*.*
>>
>> NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions
>> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
>> my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance positions
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM, <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>> David Booth <david@dbooth.org> has invited you to HL7/W3C FHIR RDF &
>> Validation/Translation Task Force
>>
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************************************
>> Manage subscriptions - http://www.HL7.org/listservice
>> <http://www.hl7.org/listservice>
>> View archives - http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its
>> <http://lists.hl7.org/read/?forum=its>
>> Unsubscribe -
>> http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=lloyd@lmckenzie.com&list=its
>> <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
>> <http://www.hl7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules>
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************************************
>> Manage your subscriptions <http://www.hl7.org/listservice> | View the
>> archives <http://lists.hl7.org/read/?forum=its> | Unsubscribe
>> <http://www.hl7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com&list=its>
>> | Terms of use
>> <http://www.hl7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules>
>>
>
>