RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

Tony,
+1  to declare http://hl7.org/fhir/ as FHIR: 
For IRI:
I would use  "http://hl7.org/fhir/severity/" rather than  
http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/reactionSeverity 
To disambiguate from a ValueSet to another will be done with the pattern 
model.

Otherwise we may end up with multiple 
http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/reactionSeverity , 
http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/conditionSeverity , etc.

Kind Regards,

Marc 
Click on link to read important disclaimer: 
http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer 



From:   Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>
To:     Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>
Cc:     Marc Twagirumukiza/AXPZC/AGFA@AGFA, 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>
Date:   05/03/2015 19:14
Subject:        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
M: +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
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

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 
***********************************************************************************

Manage your subscriptions | View the archives | Unsubscribe | Terms of use