IRC log of hcls on 2017-04-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:03:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #hcls
15:03:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:03:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:03:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #hcls
15:03:29 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be HCLS
15:03:29 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
15:03:30 [trackbot]
Meeting: Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Teleconference
15:03:30 [trackbot]
Date: 04 April 2017
15:06:48 [dbooth]
chair: David Booth
15:10:43 [dbooth]
Topic: MDMI Project
15:11:16 [dbooth]
Ken: Want to find ways to combine MDMI with RDF work
15:19:18 [dbooth]
ACTION: David to schedule discussion on comining MDMI and RDF efforts
15:19:18 [trackbot]
'David' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dderour, dhansen2, dnewman, dshotton).
15:19:39 [dbooth]
Topic: Mini-ontology generation for status codes and other codes
15:20:21 [dbooth]
eric: Status codes have semantic relationships that are not explicit. Would be helpful to make them explicit in OWL.
15:22:25 [dbooth]
... Then inference engines would understand them.
15:23:29 [dbooth]
... We want that hierarchy written not only in RDF, but in the FHIR spec, so that the RDF will stay up to date.
15:24:32 [dbooth]
ken: We noticed instances where the state machine model in the VA was wrong, relative to codes. So this would help.
15:25:23 [dbooth]
... Is there one ont or status code set across different FHIR resources?
15:26:30 [dbooth]
eric: To the extent that people did not want to reinvent the wheel, they are harmonized across resources.
15:28:38 [dbooth]
rob: Not required to be harmonized, but there is an effort to do so.
15:29:07 [dbooth]
dbooth: If the same code is used in different resources, are we guaranteed that it has the same meaning?
15:29:15 [dbooth]
rob: Yes if they have the same coding system.
15:29:48 [dbooth]
... The value set lists where they are used:
15:31:48 [dbooth]
matt: There are some lexical codes that are the same, but with different meaning, such as in But they have differrent namespaces, so they are distinguished that way.
15:33:29 [dbooth]
dbooth: What if we have codes in different systems that are logically equivalent?
15:34:23 [dbooth]
matt: Definitions are 95% identical, but not 100%.
15:35:00 [dbooth]
dbooth: How much added benefit would there be for expressing that equivalence?
15:37:10 [dbooth]
eric: Order and fulfillment pipelines would have use cases to benefit from equivalence. But clinical questions would probably need explicit status anyway.
15:37:29 [dbooth]
dbooth: I could imagine wanting to do a query using only data with status=final.
15:39:02 [dbooth]
eric: Harmonizing across resources would be much harder than getting the individual hierarchies expressed in RDF.
15:41:53 [dbooth]
dbooth: How should these mini-ontologies be organized? One file per mini-ont? One file combining the min-onts? Part of fhir.rdf?
15:42:46 [dbooth]
eric: one advantage to one file per mini-ont is that the ones that have been harmonized can then be moved into a different place, such as fhir.rdf
15:44:15 [dbooth]
... If we want to do inference we probably want them to be OWL individuals.
15:45:56 [dbooth]
... One file per mini-ont allows us to mimic the existing FHIR structuring.
15:47:01 [dbooth]
AGREED: Generate one mini-ont file per valueset
15:50:06 [dbooth]
ACTION: eric to request indenting to indicate hierarchy use explicit symbol, such as arrow in
15:50:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-80 - Request indenting to indicate hierarchy use explicit symbol, such as arrow in [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2017-04-11].
15:53:40 [dbooth]
ACTION: Rob to check on the resolution of final/amended codes (whether amended is an end state)
15:53:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-81 - Check on the resolution of final/amended codes (whether amended is an end state) [on Rob Frost - due 2017-04-11].
15:56:37 [dbooth]
ACTION: Rob to work with Harold on implementing mini-ont generation
15:56:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-82 - Work with harold on implementing mini-ont generation [on Rob Frost - due 2017-04-11].
15:57:30 [dbooth]
Topic: Coordinating open source projects
15:58:08 [dbooth]
dbooth: Are there other open source projects that we should invite to our upcoming discussion, about coming/coordinating efforts?
15:58:41 [dbooth]
ken: You deal with RDF space, we deal with UML space. There are a lot of people using open source tooling for modeling information models.
15:59:40 [dbooth]
dbooth: Shared goal is gaining interop using open source.
16:00:25 [dbooth]
ken: Like to see what we're doing with Linked Data.
16:00:34 [dbooth]
dbooth: Linked Data is RDF. Another name for it.
16:01:18 [dbooth]
ken: Maybe OpenEHR?
16:02:02 [dbooth]
dbooth: Who should we ask?
16:03:00 [dbooth]
rob: Tom Beale (best to ask), Heather Leslie, Ian McNichol
16:04:30 [dbooth]
ken: In OMG we're about to start working on v2 of the MDMI standard, and Elisa Kendall will help. We would welcome participation.
16:05:09 [dbooth]
eric: Can we make use of the models, by virtue of harmonizing with RDF? The BRIDGE was written in UML, then put in RDF and I was able to use it.
16:05:47 [dbooth]
... Cecil Lynch probably wasn't thinking about what would be needed, but I was able to directly use his work.
16:06:48 [dbooth]
... A success would be if all the CIMI terms could be harmonized, so two people write bodyMass, we can know that they;re the same. OpenEHR could do then instead of using numeric IDs.
16:07:14 [dbooth]
... Their ID system looks like JSON-Path at the moment.
16:07:19 [dbooth]
... That could be an objective.
16:08:20 [dbooth]
16:08:57 [dbooth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:08:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dbooth