Lloyd, Agreed that the FHIR/RDF would only be for FHIR. Other standard mappings would be independent.
Tony From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 3:03 PM To: Anthony Mallia Cc: David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; [email protected] Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.) Hi Tony, Well, from a publication perspective, the RDF and OWL/etc. representation of FHIR will become a core part of the FHIR specification and will not include any v2, v3 or other aspects. I think v3 is mostly done. V2 will be particularly challenging because there's little consistency in how instances are actually populated, so any reliable semantic web stuff is going to be tough. In any case, I don't think the requirements for linking to other ontologies can or will change how we represent content in FHIR as RDF. Lloyd -------------------------------------- Lloyd McKenzie +1-780-993-9501 Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Anthony Mallia <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Lloyd and David, We should formally collect the requirements for the effort. Rob and I have started thinking about the vision of where this might go. Making a transliteral or verbatim representation of FHIR is certainly a stepping point but I believe that there are other mappings which need to be considered such as HL7 v2 given the size of deployment. The charter is not restricted to FHIR The higher level of ontology "dream" might be something that is an alloy and shows the various representations of health information normalized to an RDF+ style not bound to any of the exchange mechanisms. How the transliteral version maps to the dream for each standard would be needed. Tony Mallia -----Original Message----- From: David Booth [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2:05 PM To: Lloyd McKenzie Cc: w3c semweb HCLS; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.) Hi Lloyd, On 12/08/2014 01:35 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote: > I think we need to define our objectives for the RDF representation. > Mine are as follows: Great list! My comments . . . > > 1. It must be possible to round-trip from XML/JSON through RDF > representation +1 > * This includes retaining information about order of repeating > elements Is the order of repeating elements semantically significant in FHIR? I.e., would it affect or use of the interpretation of the information? If not, then why do you view this as important? (Playing devil's advocate here, to elicit the rationale.) > * Needs to allow for extensions where-ever they can appear, including > simple types (date, boolean, etc.) +1 > 2. We want to be able to represent instances as RDF +1 and Profiles as OWL/RDFS +0.9. I think the profiles MUST be represented in some form of RDF, but whether it is done using OWL, RDFS or some combination of OWL, RDFS and something else (SKOS?) I think should be a judgement call that is made as we go along. > 3. Syntax needs to be "safe" when dealing with modifier extensions 4. > Syntax should support vocabulary bindings to code, Coding and > CodeableConcept - including dealing with extensible value sets and > multi-code system value sets 5. Syntax should enforce constraints that > are representable in RDF (i.e. > schema constraints, regular expressions, etc.) Can you explain what you mean by syntax in the above? For example, if Turtle is used to serialize the RDF, what would the above points mean? > 6. In the RDFS/OWL, should expose at least minimal annotation > information for display +1 BTW, there's another distinction that Eric Prud'hommeaux used to distinguish between different ontology styles or goals. I think he referred to one style as a "mechanical" ontology, which might be fairly directly derived from the FHIR spec and is oriented mainly toward ease of round tripping between RDF and XML or JSON. The other style is a "dream" ontology, which is friendlier and more natural for humans to view and may take more work to converge upon. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, but in prioritizing our work effort I'm of the opinion that we should FIRST go for the mechanical ontology, and once we've got that sufficiently nailed down, we could try to figure out a dream ontology, with the ability to automatically translate instance data between the two. Thanks, David Booth
