Fwd: RE: ACTION: Tony to try using fhir:code and fhir:coding.code in the ontology

Forwarding again with line numbers
   1. -------- Forwarded Message --------
   2. Subject: RE: ACTION: Tony to try using fhir:code and 
fhir:coding.code in
   3. the ontology
   4. Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:56:25 +0000
   5. From: Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>
   6. To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
   7.
   8. David,
   9.
  10. I have the ontology working and it does not require the distinction
  11. between fhir:code and fhir:Coding.code so we can stick to fhir:code
  12.
  13. Repeated the problem that Lloyd identified of upward propagation 
of the
  14. type to the actual entity e.g. AllergyIntolerance
  15.
  16. Here is the general class axiom in the internal terminology bridge 
which
  17. enables inference of the type on the AllergyIntolerance.status code
  18.
  19. [ rdf:type owl:Class ;
  20.    rdfs:subClassOf
  21. <http://hl7.org/fhir/bridge/allergy-intolerance-status#confirmed> ;
  22.    owl:intersectionOf ( fhirvs:allergy-intolerance-status
  23.                         [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
  24.                           owl:onProperty fhir:value ;
  25.                           owl:hasValue "confirmed"
  26.                         ]
  27.                       )
  28. ] .
  29.
  30. If the code is in the Valueset fhirvs:allergy-intolerance-status 
and has
  31. a value "confirmed"
  32. then it is of Concept type allergy-intolerance-status#confirmed.
  33.
  34. The way the reasoner finds that it is in the value set is from the
  35. object property range:
  36.
  37. @prefix fhirvs: <http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/> .
  38. fhir:AllergyIntolerance.status rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
  39.                                 fhir:binding.valueSetReference
  40. 
"http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/allergy-intolerance-status"^^xsd:anyURI ;
  41.                                 fhir:isModifier "true"^^xsd:boolean ;
  42.                                 fhir:isSummary "true"^^xsd:boolean ;
  43.                                 rdfs:comment "Decision support would
  44. typically raise alerts for 'Unconfirmed', 'Confirmed', and 'Resolved'
  45. and ignore a 'Refuted' reaction. In particular, 'Refuted' may be 
useful
  46. for reconciliation  of the Adverse Reaction List. Some 
implementations
  47. may choose to make this field mandatory." ;
  48.                                 fhir:short "active | unconfirmed |
  49. confirmed | inactive | resolved | refuted | entered-in-error" ;
  50.                                 fhir:binding.description "Assertion
  51. about certainty associated with a propensity, or potential risk, of a
  52. reaction to the identified Substance." ;
  53.                                 fhir:concept_definition "Assertion 
about
  54. certainty associated with the propensity, or potential risk, of a
  55. reaction to the identified Substance." ;
  56.                                 fhir:binding.strength "required" ;
  57.                                 rdfs:domain fhir:AllergyIntolerance ;
  58.                                 rdfs:range fhir:code ,
  59. fhirvs:allergy-intolerance-status .
  60.
  61. This is asserted because the binding strength is "required"
  62.
  63. The AllergyIntolerance.substance is a CodeableConcept with contained
  64. Codings which declares its Coding,system  so there is no need to 
go back
  65. to the
  66. ObjectProperty.
  67.
  68. The following declares that the CodeableConcept is of that type if it
  69. has any Codings of that type:
  70.
  71. [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
  72.    rdfs:subClassOf <http://snomed.info/id/373297006> ;
  73.    owl:onProperty fhir:CodeableConcept.coding ;
  74.    owl:someValuesFrom <http://snomed.info/id/373297006>
  75. ] .
  76.
  77. The following declares that Coding is of that Concept type if it has
  78. snomed as the coding system and 373297006 as the code value"
  79.
  80. [ rdf:type owl:Class ;
  81.    rdfs:subClassOf <http://snomed.info/id/373297006> ;
  82.    owl:intersectionOf ( [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
  83.                           owl:onProperty fhir:Coding.code ;
  84.                           owl:allValuesFrom [ rdf:type 
owl:Restriction ;
  85.                                               owl:onProperty 
fhir:value ;
  86.                                               owl:hasValue "373297006"
  87.                                             ]
  88.                         ]
  89.                         [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
  90.                           owl:onProperty fhir:Coding.system ;
  91.                           owl:hasValue <http://snomed.info/sct>
  92.                         ]
  93.                       )
  94. ] .
  95.
  96. Thus the SNOMED Bridge ontology can be built without knowing where 
the
  97. CodeableConcept is used.
  98.
  99. Tony
100.
101.
102.
103. -----Original Message-----
104. From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org]
105. Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:17 AM
106. To: Anthony Mallia
107. Subject: ACTION: Tony to try using fhir:code and fhir:coding.code 
in the
108. ontology
109.
110. Hi Tony,
111.
112. ACTION: Tony to try using fhir:code and fhir:coding.code in the 
ontology
113. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-minutes.html#action01]
114.
115. Any progress on this?  Do you think you'll have something to show 
us on
116. tomorrow's call?
117.
118. thanks,
119. David

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 16:15:03 UTC