> On 28 Jun 2016, at 04:42, David Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Correct. Again: what harm do you think is caused by that?
People’s Privacy is harmed. Quite a big issue in some countries ;-) > Giving people a vocabulary for publishing eHealth records is *not* the same > as publishing those records. It simply provides a consistent *vocabulary* > for publishing data *when* it is appropriate to do so. The “when” is the issue. Since schema.org promotes the open HTML page as the mechanism to publish schema.org data. Then FHIR Conformance is completely by-passed [1]. > Teaching someone how to drive a car does not mean that we are encouraging > them to drive off of a cliff. Yes, but those that govern the cliff who *know* it is dangerous will deploy mitigation strategies (ie build a rail guard), > Some common reasons why health data is legitimately published: > - It is test data. > - It is de-identified data, for research. > - The individual it's about wants to publish it. For example, he/she may > have a rare disease and wants others to help seek a cure for it. And all of these can be achieved with the normative FHIR “ontology”. >> My point is that you *do not* need to do that. We already have the HL7 FHIR >> URIs for the vocab. Use that. > > I will, thank you. But you are unlikely to get people who *only* use the > schema.org vocabulary to use the FHIR vocabulary. And there are likely to be > far more of them than FHIR users. It is far more likely that a “user" who is publishing FHIR data would have intimate knowledge of the vocab from the FHIR specs themselves then from schema.org. It is scary to think that, for example, a user wrote a CDA document, and never referred to the CDA specification :-) > No, I don't think that is the purpose in this case. The purpose is to align > *other* vocabularies with the FHIR vocabulary, in this case the schema.org > vocabulary. So that is easily achievable in the FHIR “ontology” with outgoing references to the other vocabs to align to (and/or the other vocabs can refer to FHIR “ontology" URI concepts). Renato [1] http://hl7.org/fhir/2016May/conformance-rules.html
