Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Teleconference

20 Oct 2015

See also: IRC log


David_Booth, EricP, Tony_Mallia, Bill_Kleinebecker_(webex_only?), Lloyd_McKenzie, Paul_Knapp, Rob_Hausam, Vipul_Kashyap, +_2_anonymous_listeners
David Booth and Paul Knapp


<trackbot> Date: 20 October 2015


<dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:ValueSet_approach.pdf

<dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/images/f/ff/ValueSet_approach.pdf

<dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/images/f/ff/ValueSet_approach.pdf

tonY: showing v6 of value set approach
... two options

lloyd: should be only one option - the first
... value sets refer to coding bases, not concepts
... concept inside of compose refers to a codingBase

<dbooth> lloyd: line 405 is about codings -- not concepts. Where it says <concept> it does not mean concept.

<dbooth> lloyd: In the case of <concept> on line 134 there is a 1-1 relationship to code.

lloyd: value set is always and only about the set of codes - not concepts

<dbooth> lloyd: you can filter codes in a ValueSet based on their concepts, but a ValueSet is a set of codes.

tony: why are we suddenly getting a rejection of the relationship to concepts?

<dbooth> lloyd: You have Codings and Concepts -- disjoint structures. There's a relationship in which Coding can infer a Concept.

tony: hidden problem in the ORIM

lloyd: coding can never be a member of a concept

david: lloyd's point is that they should be disjoint

tony: it's not possible to do that

lloyd: you type the concept

tony: look at line 60 - substance with external reference

<dbooth> tony: line 61

tony: 60 is correct, but line 61 is not

<dbooth> lloyd: line 60 is right, 61 is wrong

lloyd: concept is a specialization of all of the concepts that are implied based on the particular coding

tony: application of the type on line 61 is incorrect

lloyd: that is exactly what I'm saying
... when defining a code system, defined the list of permitted codes
... second thing, list of classes that defines the meanings
... third step, this particular concept can be inferred if you see a coding 'x', 'y', 'z', etc.
... : the meaning lives at the concept level, and concept has a property that points to coding

david: it's a restriction on the property

lloyd: concept has object property of coding, then coding has properties of code and system
... in the instance level and the class declaration

tony: we have a change to the way that we define the restrictions
... line 250-260 need to be restrictions so that it comes out as a concept with the restrictions on its parts
... would have a restriction on the concept.coding where the coding has a restriction as in 250-254
... concepts always refer to conceptBase
... we have have the separation - concepts are always concepts, codings are "parts" of the concept

david: paul is on, so will approve minutes

Minutes approval

<dbooth> sep 22 minutes: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20150922

david: Paul will chair for minutes approval
... motion to approve 9/22 minutes

<dbooth> Minutes of sep 22 APPROVED!

paul: opposed - 0, abstain - 0, minutes, in favor - 6; minutesapproved

david: tony, are there other parts of the document we can go through today?

Back to ValueSets

<dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/images/f/ff/ValueSet_approach.pdf

tony: diagram line 432

lloyd: the diagram will be updated to reflect the new understanding?

tony: yes

lloyd: subclass relationships from top concept and coding base to value set will be removed
... and subclass relationships from codingBase to concepts 2 and 3 will be removed
... sent an email to ITS list about options for defining value sets

<dbooth> lloyd, is this the email where you enumerate the ways that ValueSets can be defined? http://lists.hl7.org/read/messages?id=281404

rob: transitive and reflexive are built into OWL

lloyd: some reasoners don't handle them well
... some of the expressiveness needs to be limited so that the reasoners can handle it
... HermiT behaved well, also used Pellet

rob: which OWL 2 subset

david: see how it behaves and decide which one to use

lloyd: has problems with address parts
... street direction relationship is not isa - it's containment but that is transitive
... v3 asserts the part-of relationships which are transitive - not legal to assert in OWL-DL, so have a flag

<dbooth> OWL2 profiles: EL, QL, RL http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/

rob: OWL 2 profiles are EL, QL and RL
... thanks, David!

lloyd: have multiple versions of the ontology - some reflect more of the world, but are less computable - others express less, but are computationally feasible

david: will need to handle of the cases that Lloyd listed
... may not be able to handle all of the semantics

tony: we may not be able to translate some of them

david: always as a fallback represent them syntactically

tony: could be a note

david: no
... have to be able to round trip anything in FHIR
... may not be able to capture everything so that it is "OWL friendly"

Next week

<dbooth> rob: probable regrets for next week

<dbooth> rob: In Uruguay for IHTSDO meeting

<dbooth> ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/10/20 16:05:19 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/if/is/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: rhausam
Inferring Scribes: rhausam
Present: David_Booth EricP Tony_Mallia Bill_Kleinebecker_(webex_only?) Lloyd_McKenzie Paul_Knapp Rob_Hausam Vipul_Kashyap +_2_anonymous_listeners
Found Date: 20 Oct 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-hcls-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]