W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2018

Questions about FHIR RDF

From: UTwente <j.luizrebelomoreira@utwente.nl>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:05:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMmh81D9AuZekB8MeXMXdTSPNb5mqmxp6cLz8zYaq=NjkXO=Cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Hi all,

Last Tuesday we decided that I'd send some questions regarding FHIR RDF.
The list is below, sorry in advance if there are "stupid questions":

- Regarding documentation of the ontology, I noticed that there are two W3C
specs:
http://w3c.github.io/hcls-fhir-rdf/spec/ontology.html
http://w3c.github.io/hcls-fhir-rdf/spec/

What is the difference between them?

- I missed a history section (a timeline) explaining when FHIR RDF was
created, what was the problem, the goals, the versions published, etc.

- Is there a comparison study of FHIR RDF vs other ontologies that share
equivalent principles (records x facts and non-monotonicity)? E.g. FHIR RDF
vs OpenEHR approach or vs UniversAAL ontology?

- Is there an official agenda (roadmap) for FHIR RDF (e.g. ongoing and
future work, expected results, etc)?

- What is the process between W3C and HL7 to evolve this ontology? Is there
a workflow for decision making?

- I think that Eric mentioned that IoT was one of the use cases that the
workgroup is interested for applying FHIR RDF. I noticed that the section
"3.0.5 Common use cases" (http://build.fhir.org/linked-data-module.html) is
stamped with "TODO" yet. Is there a list of use cases, listing the past
ones and the intended ones?

- The prior question brings to this: what are the case studies that used
FHIR RDF and/or are using it now and/or planned to near future? I saw the
presentation from Harold and Eric about Rheumatoidarthrits (
https://www.w3.org/2016/Talks/1205-swat4ls-egp/reasoning#(1)), is this a
case study being developed for healthcare system?

- We talked about the WP5 document, but I'd like to know what is WP5, is
this a working package within a project? Which project? What is the goal of
WP5?

- Did I understand correctly that the goal of this current FHIR RDF is to
thoroughly representation of FHIR standard (the data model)? If yes, why
not having two ontologies: this one and another one as a lightweight FHIR
RDF to be used by semantic healthcare systems (e.g. the IoT ECG system I'm
working on)? This second ontology could be derived from and mapped to the
first.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Joao
Received on Monday, 26 February 2018 11:06:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 26 February 2018 11:06:37 UTC