Minutes & recording from FHIR RDF call (Aug 19): Issue 77 - Blank nodes to support FHIR extensions

Minutes from last week's FHIR RDF call are here, and below in plain text:
https://www.w3.org/2021/08/19-hcls-minutes.html

A recording is here: https://youtu.be/cE3NuPVZZZs

Thanks,
David Booth

                   -------------------------------

    [1]W3C

       [1] https://www.w3.org/

                              – DRAFT –
                                 FHIR RDF

19 August 2021

    [2]IRC log.

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/08/19-hcls-irc

Attendees

    Present
           David Booth, Emily Pfaff, Gaurav Vaidya, Gopikrishnan
           Chandrasekharan (Gopi), Harold Solbrig, Jim Balhoff,
           Sivaram Arabandi

    Regrets
           -

    Chair
           David Booth

    Scribe
           dbooth

Contents

     1. [3]R4 issues and plans for R5
     2. [4]Issue 77: Blank nodes to support FHIR extensions

Meeting minutes

   R4 issues and plans for R5

    harold: One goal is round-trippability of FHIR JSON <--> FHIR
    RDF, without losing or gaining information.
    … Design decisions in FHIR RDF R4 made sure that we could
    round-trip, but it added complexity, such as an extra blank
    node to allow extensions on a boolean.
    … We should revisit some of these decision, to make FHIR RDF
    easier to use.
    … But we don't want to make unneeded.

   Issue 77: Blank nodes to support FHIR extensions

    jim: Option 1 Will make OWL unhappy, because the same property
    would be both datatype and object type property.

    harold: could add .extension to the property, like syntactic
    convention of underscore in front of the property name.

    siviram: Nice to have the consistency of everything using the
    fhir:value everywhere.

    emily: over-engineering may not be worth changing this.

    harold: We thought we had over-engineered it when we came up
    with this.

    gopi: would like to known where those blank nodes are. Might be
    easier to explain to non-RDF people without the blank nodes.
    But if it's a set pattern you can get used to it.

    harold: While FHIR allows datatype extensions, and shows how it
    might be done, but how many profiles actually do this? Anybody?
    … We could just say that we don't support primitive extensions
    in RDF, or we support them the way JSON does, with an
    underscore in front of the name.

    sivaram: OWL distinguishes datatype properties from object
    properties, but most languages don't make that distinction.

    harold: FHIR makes an internal distinction between datatypes
    (as we know them; value is its identity) and compound datatypes
    (that still lack identity).

    sivaram: There's the basic data, and then inferred data. Maybe
    treat the extensions as a similar enrichment, so a short-cut
    way to the value -- a shadow property that mirrors the object
    property.

    Captured in issue 77: [5]https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/
    issues/77

       [5] https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/77

    ADJOURNED


     Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
     [6]scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).

       [6] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2021 14:27:50 UTC