15:03:25 RRSAgent has joined #hcls 15:03:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-hcls-irc 15:03:27 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:03:28 Zakim has joined #hcls 15:03:29 Zakim, this will be HCLS 15:03:29 ok, trackbot 15:03:30 Meeting: Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Teleconference 15:03:30 Date: 04 April 2017 15:06:48 chair: David Booth 15:10:43 Topic: MDMI Project 15:11:16 Ken: Want to find ways to combine MDMI with RDF work 15:19:18 ACTION: David to schedule discussion on comining MDMI and RDF efforts 15:19:18 '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 Topic: Mini-ontology generation for status codes and other codes 15:20:21 eric: Status codes have semantic relationships that are not explicit. Would be helpful to make them explicit in OWL. 15:22:25 ... Then inference engines would understand them. 15:23:29 ... 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 ken: We noticed instances where the state machine model in the VA was wrong, relative to codes. So this would help. 15:25:23 ... Is there one ont or status code set across different FHIR resources? 15:26:30 eric: To the extent that people did not want to reinvent the wheel, they are harmonized across resources. 15:28:38 rob: Not required to be harmonized, but there is an effort to do so. 15:29:07 dbooth: If the same code is used in different resources, are we guaranteed that it has the same meaning? 15:29:15 rob: Yes if they have the same coding system. 15:29:48 ... The value set lists where they are used: http://build.fhir.org/valueset-observation-status.html 15:31:48 matt: There are some lexical codes that are the same, but with different meaning, such as in http://build.fhir.org/valueset-diagnostic-report-status.html But they have differrent namespaces, so they are distinguished that way. 15:33:29 dbooth: What if we have codes in different systems that are logically equivalent? 15:34:23 matt: Definitions are 95% identical, but not 100%. 15:35:00 dbooth: How much added benefit would there be for expressing that equivalence? 15:37:10 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: I could imagine wanting to do a query using only data with status=final. 15:39:02 eric: Harmonizing across resources would be much harder than getting the individual hierarchies expressed in RDF. 15:41:53 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 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 ... If we want to do inference we probably want them to be OWL individuals. 15:45:56 ... One file per mini-ont allows us to mimic the existing FHIR structuring. 15:47:01 AGREED: Generate one mini-ont file per valueset 15:50:06 ACTION: eric to request indenting to indicate hierarchy use explicit symbol, such as arrow in http://build.fhir.org/valueset-observation-status.html 15:50:06 Created ACTION-80 - Request indenting to indicate hierarchy use explicit symbol, such as arrow in http://build.fhir.org/valueset-observation-status.html [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2017-04-11]. 15:53:40 ACTION: Rob to check on the resolution of final/amended codes (whether amended is an end state) http://build.fhir.org/valueset-observation-status.html 15:53:41 Created ACTION-81 - Check on the resolution of final/amended codes (whether amended is an end state) http://build.fhir.org/valueset-observation-status.html [on Rob Frost - due 2017-04-11]. 15:56:37 ACTION: Rob to work with Harold on implementing mini-ont generation 15:56:37 Created ACTION-82 - Work with harold on implementing mini-ont generation [on Rob Frost - due 2017-04-11]. 15:57:30 Topic: Coordinating open source projects 15:58:08 dbooth: Are there other open source projects that we should invite to our upcoming discussion, about coming/coordinating efforts? 15:58:41 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: Shared goal is gaining interop using open source. 16:00:25 ken: Like to see what we're doing with Linked Data. 16:00:34 dbooth: Linked Data is RDF. Another name for it. 16:01:18 ken: Maybe OpenEHR? 16:02:02 dbooth: Who should we ask? 16:03:00 rob: Tom Beale (best to ask), Heather Leslie, Ian McNichol 16:04:30 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 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 ... Cecil Lynch probably wasn't thinking about what would be needed, but I was able to directly use his work. 16:06:48 ... 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 ... Their ID system looks like JSON-Path at the moment. 16:07:19 ... That could be an objective. 16:08:20 ADJOURNED 16:08:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:08:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/04-hcls-minutes.html dbooth