RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

Lloyd,
I agree. The use of prefix is a presentation issue and does not change the behavior of reasoners etc.
If a user wants to add prefixes it can be done locally based on the IRI structure which is what we need to focus on.
However we do want to use the dereferenceable URIs that FHIR designates so we can get at the semantic definition if needed.

So a proposed position will be to declare http://hl7.org/fhir/ as FHIR: but the dereferenceable URI probably has http://hl7.org/fhir/structuredefinition/ so we should use this maybe in an annotation not the name IRI.
I was just working on reactionSeverity ValueSet which would have an IRI of http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/reactionSeverity and its display will be determined by rdfs:label value derived from ValueSet.name.

Tony

From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-its@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS
Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

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<mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com>
M: +1 587-334-1110<tel:1-587-334-1110>
W: gevityinc.com<http://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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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://www.agfahealthcare.com/>
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com<http://blog.agfahealthcare.com/>
________________________________
Click on link to read important disclaimer: http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer




From:        Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com<mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com>>
To:        David Booth <david@dbooth.org<mailto:david@dbooth.org>>
Cc:        w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>>, HL7 ITS <its@lists.hl7.org<mailto:its@lists.hl7.org>>
Date:        04/03/2015 19:33
Subject:        Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
Sent by:        owner-its@lists.hl7.org<mailto: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<mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com>
M: +1 587-334-1110<tel:1-587-334-1110>
W: gevityinc.com<http://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<mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
David Booth <david@dbooth.org<mailto: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>