W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > September 2021

Minutes from FHIR RDF call (Sept 09): Issue 77: Primitive properties and extensions (cont)

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 12:58:11 -0400
To: "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.HL7.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3a87a77a-4a63-6350-371a-f6097a2a1f14@dbooth.org>
We made good progress today.  We narrowed down the options for issue 77 
by eliminating options 1a, 1b, 2, 2b, and 3:
https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/77
I also started creating a summary of the options here (not yet complete):
https://tinyurl.com/issue77options

Minutes are here:
https://www.w3.org/2021/09/09-hcls-minutes.html
and also below in plain text.

Thanks!
David Booth

     ------------------------------------------------------------
    [1]W3C

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

                              – DRAFT –
                                 FHIR RDF

09 September 2021

    [2]IRC log.

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/09/09-hcls-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Brad Simons, David Booth, Emily Pfaff, EricP, Gaurav
           Vaidya, Gopi, James Champion

    Regrets
           -

    Chair
           David Booth

    Scribe
           dbooth

Contents

     1. [3]extending primitive types

Meeting minutes

   extending primitive types

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

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

    david: I think that option 2b is better than 2.

    emily: agreed

    eric: Not sure of implications of having birthDate be both a
    datatype property and an individual.

    david: We're looking at this comparison: [5]https://
    docs.google.com/document/d/
    1KbZkFKNOMeMvQOWmWPeI9Yvp1ae2mZ2tDIZ_vCHbeMA/edit

       [5] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KbZkFKNOMeMvQOWmWPeI9Yvp1ae2mZ2tDIZ_vCHbeMA/edit

    brad: would a SPARQL query be harder in option 2 or 2b?

    eric: option 2 has an easier property path than 2b.

    gopi: I prefer 2.

    gaurav: I prefer 2b

    emily: I prefer any option that reduces bnodes

    david: 1a vs 1b?

    eric: I like {2, 2a} better than {1a, 1b}

    brad: I also don't like 1a or 1b.

    gaurav: Pref 2 and 2b better also.

    david: Propose dropping 1a and 1b from consideration.

    eric: seconded. Brad also.

    AGREED: dropping 1a and 1b from consideration

    david: Preferences of 3 vs 2 or 2b?

    eric: prefer 3 over 2, 2b

    eric: I think 3 would be on the right path toward modifier
    extensions also.

    david: I also prefer 3 over 2 and 2b

    brad: I also prefer 3 over 2 and 2b.

    david: Propose dropping 2 and 2b from consideration

    eric: seconded.

    james and gopi: Also prefer 3 over 2 and 2b.

    gaurav: sligtly prefer 2, but okay with going with 3.

    AGREED: dropping 2 and 2b from consideration

    david: 3b removes one level of property path and declares the
    extension object as a fhir:Extension.

    eric: Not strictly necessary to declare the type as
    fhir:Extension (because it's known from the range of _active).

    brad: prefer 3b over 3.

    david: prefer 3b over 3.

    eric: I like 3b also.

    david: Propose that we drop 3 from consideration

    gaurav: seconded.

    AGREED: drop 3 from consideration

    ADJOURNED
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2021 16:58:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 9 September 2021 16:58:26 UTC