15:01:23 RRSAgent has joined #hcls 15:01:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/27-hcls-irc 15:01:25 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:01:25 Zakim has joined #hcls 15:01:27 Zakim, this will be HCLS 15:01:27 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:01:28 Meeting: Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Teleconference 15:01:28 Date: 27 October 2015 15:02:58 Tony has joined #HCLS 15:03:20 Topic: ValueSets 15:03:35 davide_sottara has joined #hcls 15:04:33 http://wiki.hl7.org/images/f/ff/ValueSet_approach.pdf 15:06:58 tony: This version has separated CodingBase from Concepts 15:08:55 lloyd: Strange on line 10 to call out one particular approach. There are others: enumeration, patterns on the code, properties of the code, relationship of the concepts, combinations of coding constraints. 15:09:17 ... They should all be listed on line 10. 15:09:41 tony: are they listed somewhere? 15:10:00 lloyd: The email I sent a couple weeks ago gives you a list. 15:10:29 ... We could also just say that there is a variety of ways of constraining the codes. 15:11:10 line 52 15:16:54 lloyd: fhir:AllergyIntolerance.status has a range of fhir:code , so you don't need to explicitly say on line 52 that it is a fhir:code. 15:19:25 dbooth: on line 52, put fhir:code in red, because it can be inferred. 15:23:17 davide: if the VS is a class, and you pass an individual, and the range of that class, then any individual will be inferred to be a member of that class. 15:23:42 tony: For that reason you don't declare the range of the object property. 15:26:11 tony: line 78 says fhir:AllergyIntolerance.status has owl:allValuesFrom fhirvs:allergy-intolerance-statusA , which is a VS 15:27:19 davide: OWA is not well suited to validation 15:27:44 lloyd: A FHIR message closes the world. 15:28:03 ... And a VS specifics a closed set of allowable codes. 15:28:14 s/specifics/specifies/ 15:29:01 lloyd: When we reference a VS in FHIR it can have a binding strength, which has 4 possible values. 15:29:25 ... Weak cannot express conformance with RDF. They are encouraged, but not required. 15:29:35 ... Fixed means the codes MUST come from this VS. 15:29:53 ... From that we can make assertions that the CodingBase will be drawn from this VS. 15:30:29 ... The fourth is most interesting: you MUST draw from the VS if your concept is in the VS, otherwise you can use a different code. 15:31:07 ... Which means that the concept is disjoint from the concepts implied by the VS codes or the code is in the VS. 15:36:01 davide: (going back to discussion of OWA inference) I just tested the ontology in protege, and it does assert an individual value of a fhir:AllergyIntolerance.status property is inferred to be a member of fhirvs:allergy-intolerance-statusA 15:36:39 lloyd: It should be fhir:AllergyIntolerance.status.coding should be owl:allValuesFrom fhirvs:allergy-intolerance-statusA . 15:37:39 lloyd: have you declared CodeBase disjointFrom ConceptBase ? Tony: yes. 15:37:54 lloyd: then it should have choked on line 78. 15:41:14 lloyd: If you assert that the code system must be X, and anything else is present then it will yell. 15:41:59 ... And if you have any codes that are also present from that same system then it should yell also, provided we have tightened everything down. 15:42:56 ... You need disjoint assertions, then it will yell if they're violated. 15:49:45 lloyd: line 416 why owl:someValuesFrom ? 15:51:12 ... line 427 why owl:hasValue as an individual instead of a string? The problem with using individuals is that you need disjoint assertions on all of them. 15:52:15 davide: Or unless it has a functional property 15:52:46 tony: line 148 is where we declare them. line 160 should say functional. 15:55:03 lloyd: Line 154, fhir:CodeSystem is not a good name for this. Code system is much more than the URI. Call it fhir:CodeSystemUri. 15:56:08 ... Not sure what's missing here, but I know it is possible to make the reasoner choke when the wrong code is used. 15:59:54 Topic: Scheduling 16:00:32 dbooth: Can we move our Wed call? 16:00:43 lloyd: no 16:00:49 dbooth: What about Tuesdays? 16:02:43 lloyd: 2pm ET would work 16:02:52 dbooth: Okay, I'll check with others. 16:03:05 Topic: github policy 16:03:28 dbooth: Want to set checkin policy to ensure that a broken ontology is not checked in. 16:04:48 dbooth: Suggest we agree on a set of test cases that must pass in order to check in. 16:08:37 dbooth: Need to encourage other people to get involved and contribute. 16:18:27 https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf 16:18:33 tony: I need to be the sole committer. Otherwise too hard for me to manage. 16:20:31 dbooth: I'm fine with that. Other people could make Pull Requests (PRs) and you could be the sole person who merges them. 16:33:06 Topic: Scheduling again 16:33:39 (discussed other potential days/times) 16:34:01 AGREED: Change Wed call to 5pm ET Tuesdays. "RDF Tuesdays" :) 16:34:39 Tony: Cannot make tomorrow's call. 16:34:45 dbooth: Okay, I'll cancel. 16:34:50 ADJOURNED 16:34:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:34:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/27-hcls-minutes.html dbooth 16:35:29 Chair: David Booth 16:36:44 Present: EricP (last portion), Lloyd McKenzie, Davide Sottara, Tony Mallia 16:36:52 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:36:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/27-hcls-minutes.html dbooth 16:38:39 present+ David Booth 16:38:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:38:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/27-hcls-minutes.html dbooth 16:39:26 s/Can we move our Wed call?/Can we move our Wed call? Grahame would like to join./ 16:39:28 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:39:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/27-hcls-minutes.html dbooth 18:50:03 Zakim has left #hcls