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

Minutes from FHIR RDF call (Sept 16): Issue 77: Primitive properties and extensions (cont)

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:01:22 -0400
To: "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.HL7.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0fb846ca-b15c-3bf6-6ad6-7f26c82d29ba@dbooth.org>
We made a little more progress on issue 77 today, by eliminating options 
4a and 4b:
See also the summary of issue 77 options here:

Minutes are here:
and also below in plain text.

David Booth


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

                              – DRAFT –
                                 FHIR RDF

16 September 2021

    [2]IRC log.

       [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/09/16-hcls-irc


           David Booth, Emily Pfaff, Gaurav, Gopi, Rob Hausam


           David Booth



     1. [3]Issue 77
     2. [4]Summary of action items

Meeting minutes

   Issue 77


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

    Discussing 4a vs 4b

    Gopi: Suggestion changing birthDateObject to

    david: good idea

    AGREED: Prefer 4b over 4a

    David: 3b vs 4b?

    gaurav: prefer 3b

    emily: agree

    gopi: agree

    AGREED: Prefer 3b over 4b

    david: Compare 5a vs 3U

    emily: Don't like the extra ont relationships.

    gopi: still prefer 3b over both of these

    gaurav: calling them extensions might be simpler.

    gaurav: prefer not to create all these new properties

    gaurav: The fhir:Extension in 3bU seems like it could be

    david: Or it could be both a fhir:Extension and a fhir:Boolean.

    David: 5a, 3U or 3bU vs 3b?

    emily: Prefer 3b over all of these.

    gopi: 3bU makes sense if you are adding a certainty.

    david: We should probably get eric's input before eliminating
    these, to hear his perspective.

    gaurav: Slightly prefering 3bU over 3b.

    gopi: One advantage of 3bU is when you're entering data you can
    just use that new predicate directly.

    david: Not sure of the impact of 3gU (and other RDF-style
    options) on conversion from RDF back to JSON. Assuming that the
    standard machinery would not know about the extension. Seems it
    would at least require converting the extension URL from an RDF
    node to a string.

    rob: might be able to pull in a package to tell the machinery
    about the extension.

    Action: Gaurav to spin up on JSON-LD framing

    david: more ideas to explore for these options?

    gopi: What about data validation?
    … Need to validate cases, using SPARQL queries.

    david: Yes, important to consider impact on validation.

    gopi: Been looking at RDF reification. Extensions are similar
    in my mind, for the Certainty example.

    david: For the fhir:active example, RDF reification would be
    applicable, because "Certainty" is a statement about the
    boolean statement. But I don't think reification would be
    applicable in other extension examples, such as the birthDate
    example, which is just a matter of adding more information
    (time of birth).


Summary of action items

     1. [6]Gaurav to spin up on JSON-LD framing
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2021 13:01:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 21 September 2021 13:01:38 UTC