16:02:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #hcls
16:02:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-irc
16:02:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:02:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #hcls
16:02:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be HCLS
16:02:58 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
16:02:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Teleconference
16:02:59 <trackbot> Date: 23 February 2016
16:03:29 <Tony> Tony has joined #HCLS
16:05:33 <dbooth> Topic: Deliverables documents
16:05:42 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=RDF_for_Semantic_Interoperability#Deliverables_and_Editors
16:07:36 <dbooth> Rob: Working on section 4.  Hopefully finish this afternoon.
16:07:38 <rhausam> rhausam has joined #HCLS
16:09:23 <dbooth> Topic: Approval of minutes
16:09:29 <Sajjad> Sajjad has joined #HCLS
16:09:34 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20151020
16:10:14 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20151027
16:10:31 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20151103
16:10:41 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20151124
16:10:56 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20151201
16:11:16 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20151208
16:11:29 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20151215
16:12:09 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20160105
16:12:34 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20160113
16:12:53 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20160119
16:13:16 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20160126
16:13:52 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20160202
16:14:13 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20160209
16:14:33 <dbooth> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_Concall_Minutes_20160216
16:14:56 <dbooth> Motion to approve minute as a block.
16:15:01 <dbooth> Seconded by Tony.
16:15:12 <dbooth> Minutes approved unanimously.
16:16:02 <dbooth> Topic: Reconsider fhir:index to start at 0 instead of 1
16:16:03 <dbooth> https://www.w3.org/2016/01/19-hcls-minutes.html#item02
16:17:34 <dbooth> Motion to change fhir:index to start at 0 instead of 1 (to be consistent with other parts of FHIR).
16:17:37 <dbooth> Seconded by Tony
16:17:56 <dbooth> RESOLVED: change fhir:index to start at 0 instead of 1 (to be consistent with other parts of FHIR)
16:20:05 <dbooth> Topic: Revisiting fhir:ConceptBase and fhir:CodingBase
16:20:13 <dbooth> https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/21
16:24:55 <dbooth> david: difficult to explain the fhir:ConceptBase and fhir:CodingBase way of representing
16:24:59 <dbooth>  fhir:Code, fhir:Coding and fhir:CodeableConcept, using fhir:ConceptBase and fhir:CodingBase
16:25:24 <dbooth> tony: fundamental problem is that fhir:code has different rules and behavior when it appears inside a fhir:coding
16:25:55 <dbooth> ... a fhir:coding.code is distinct from fhir:code
16:28:11 <dbooth> rob: agreed. should create fhir:coding.code as a separate type
16:30:46 <dbooth> tony: that would be the minimal problem to fix
16:30:57 <dbooth> dbooth: we normally use fully qualified names, reflecting the nesting structure, so fhir:coding.code would make sense.
16:34:00 <dbooth> tony: I propose we do that as a compromise: split code into two properties: fhir:code and fhir:coding.code
16:35:22 <dbooth> ... In the rest of sec 4 we're applying types to the individuals.
16:36:04 <dbooth> ACTION: Tony to try using fhir:code and fhir:coding.code in the ontology
16:36:05 <trackbot> Error finding 'Tony'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2014/HCLS/track/users>.
16:37:21 <dbooth> Topic: Should the rdf:types be explicit on the wire or inferred?
16:37:27 <dbooth> https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/17
16:38:50 <dbooth> tony: Not sure it is a global decision.  The root element must have its type.
16:39:42 <dbooth> ... The XML and JSON are strange.  The XML looks like a substitution group, but it is not in the schema.  There is an unenforced rule that the tag name is the type name.  But in RDF we must have the type of the top level resource.
16:40:12 <dbooth> ... The root type must be declared.  The rest could be dropped, but are implied by the ontology from the range declarations.
16:40:51 <dbooth> sajjad: I think the subjects of RDF triples should have types, but the objects do not need types.
16:41:19 <dbooth> ... We cannot enforce the object part of the triple to have types.
16:42:08 <dbooth> tony: If we have qualified the properties with the subject class (fhir:classProperty) then the range statement would indicate the subject type.
16:42:34 <dbooth> sajjad: But when the domain is a union you want to make sure that the subject part of the triple is the particular type.
16:43:33 <dbooth> ... Also there can be restrictions on properties.
16:43:56 <dbooth> dbooth: Do we have union types that apply to a subject part of the triple?
16:44:04 <dbooth> tony: i don't think so.
16:44:34 <dbooth> ... We'll have fhir:Observation.status so the domain is unique
16:46:18 <dbooth> sajjad: we cannot force the object part of the triple to be typed, because sometimes it will be a union
16:46:28 <dbooth> tony: We have that for datatypes
16:47:30 <dbooth> ... We have not qualified fhir:value because it appears in so many places
16:47:44 <dbooth> sajjad: The ranges may also have intersections
16:48:05 <dbooth> tony: I haven't seen that yet.
16:48:29 <dbooth> eric: That exists in the structure definitions
16:50:43 <dbooth> ... If I typo a URL then I dont' get any error from OWL, but if I typo a literal I get an error from OWL
16:51:20 <dbooth> sajjad: for round tripping back to XML it is best to have everythign typed.  Also for a union range.
16:52:30 <dbooth> eric: Union only appears on one place: references
16:52:58 <dbooth> ... The structure definintions expressivity requires properties to be renamed to avoid ambiguity.
16:55:19 <dbooth> dbooth: Is it enough to rely on using a reasoner to determine the types of subjects (other than the root) from the ontology, or should the types be explicit on the wire.
16:55:50 <dbooth> eric: I don't think we need to include explicit types on the subjects (except for the root)
16:57:07 <dbooth> RESOLVED: The FHIR RDF should explicit indicate the rdf:type of the root element, but not other subject.
16:58:37 <dbooth> Topic: 5pm call
16:58:57 <dbooth> tony cannot join
16:59:25 <dbooth> dbooth: we'll see who is able to join at 5pm ET.
16:59:31 <dbooth> ADJOURNED
16:59:39 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:59:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-minutes.html dbooth
17:00:33 <dbooth> Present: Dale Nelson, David Booth, EricP, Julie M, Rob Hausam, Sajjad Hussain, Thomas Lukasik, Tony Mallia
17:00:40 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-minutes.html dbooth
17:03:31 <dbooth> Chair: David Booth and Dale Nelson
17:03:33 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-minutes.html dbooth
22:02:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #hcls
22:02:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-irc
22:02:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
22:02:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #hcls
22:02:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be HCLS
22:02:16 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
22:02:17 <trackbot> Meeting: Semantic Web Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group Teleconference
22:02:17 <trackbot> Date: 23 February 2016
22:02:33 <dbooth> Topic: ----------- 5PM CALL ------------
22:04:46 <dbooth> https://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-minutes.html#item04
22:05:43 <dbooth> Topic:
22:05:50 <dbooth> Topic: Revisiting fhir:ConceptBase and fhir:CodingBase
22:06:18 <dbooth> lloyd: The challenge is that you have lots of external vocabs and you need to link them into FHIR.
22:06:40 <dbooth> ... You need a binding concept such that when a code is seen, a particular concept applies.
22:07:14 <dbooth> ... We can have SNOMED symbols, and where the SNOMED concept applies differs for each of Code, Coding and CodeableConcept
22:10:50 <dbooth> lloyd: We end up with a concept represented by a code symbol living at different levels.  That's problematic, and I don't knwo how to get around it.
22:12:48 <dbooth> Example from lloyd:
22:12:49 <dbooth> [[
22:12:50 <dbooth> <Condition>
22:12:50 <dbooth>   <code>**
22:12:50 <dbooth>     <coding>
22:12:50 <dbooth>       <system value="http://snomed.info/sct"/>
22:12:51 <dbooth>       <code value="123456789"/>
22:12:53 <dbooth>     </coding>
22:12:55 <dbooth>   </code>
22:12:57 <dbooth> </Condition>
22:12:59 <dbooth> <Condition>
22:13:01 <dbooth>   <pretendCoding>**
22:13:03 <dbooth>     <system value="http://snomed.info/sct"/>
22:13:07 <dbooth>     <code value="123456789"/>
22:13:09 <dbooth>   </pretendCoding>
22:13:11 <dbooth> </Condition>
22:13:13 <dbooth> <Condition>
22:13:15 <dbooth>   <pretendCode value="123456789"/>**
22:13:17 <dbooth> </Condition>
22:13:19 <dbooth> ]]
22:13:23 <dbooth> What happens if we want to add another attribute that also wants to draw from SNOMED?
22:13:33 <dbooth> s/What/lloyd: What/
22:14:03 <dbooth> ... sometimes the concept shows up in one place, sometimes in another, sometimes in a third place
22:14:39 <dbooth> ... We have a snomed ont that is defined externally -- we don't control it.
22:15:14 <dbooth> ... The binding ont will have to say 'if you have a CodeableConcept with a system of bar and a code of foo, then that implies that the Codeable concept has a concept ID'
22:15:20 <dbooth> ... And you do that for every concept.
22:15:32 <dbooth> ... Not pleasant, but automatable.
22:15:57 <dbooth> ... Pretty manageable for most code systems.
22:16:28 <dbooth> ... But if we need to set distinct rules for every single datatype, every single terminology, that becomes untenable.
22:16:43 <dbooth> grahame: There's only three patterns here.  Why is it hard to deal with them?
22:16:58 <dbooth> lloyd: The three patterns live all over the place.
22:17:45 <dbooth> grahame: I don't think the case of putting a SNOMED code inside a code will be an issue.
22:18:19 <dbooth> ... For every code element, you'll need custom logic.  No way around it.  You don't know what the system is.
22:18:32 <dbooth> lloyd: We know what the bindings are.  They allow us to infer the code system.
22:18:47 <dbooth> ... We can infer the system.
22:18:59 <dbooth> grahame: How can you do that, but not handle the other two patterns?
22:19:18 <dbooth> lloyd: OWL is good at the other two, but not that one.
22:19:44 <dbooth> ... The concept lives at condition.code
22:21:02 <dbooth> eric: We could push harder on the example, but there will be some use cases where we want to have an OWL inference that allows us to say someone has sniffles
22:21:45 <dbooth> ... lloyd's concern is that if we need to handle kinds of diseases including the ways they can show up, then we multiply the cases.
22:22:41 <dbooth> lloyd: Pursue it as two different resources, each with three attributes: codeableConcept, Coding, code; and all 6 have valueset from the same code system.  Figure out the binding ontology that links FHIR structures to code system ont.
22:23:45 <dbooth> ... It's possible to have codes from code systems that are either directly bound or have identify mapping, with Code, CodeableConcept or Coding.
22:23:57 <dbooth> ... We need to design the ont to handle all of them.
22:25:24 <dbooth> grahame: Counter proposal: I've implemented ConceptBase twice (once for each ref impl).  Hope to gen RDF tomorrow.  I think I got ConceptBase wrong the first time around.  The problem that lloyd's having is that he wants the concepts to live at the binding level.
22:25:39 <dbooth> ... But the concepts arise with the system+code pair.
22:26:15 <dbooth> ... So the RDF representation for the underlying concepts for CoceableConcept, Coding and Code should make life simpler for all.
22:26:39 <dbooth> ... You can also add a statement to the ont, and we can discuss where that goes as well as restructuring the coding structure.
22:26:57 <dbooth> ... That might make the process of determining the ont link more difficult.
22:27:30 <dbooth> lloyd: The concept for condition.code lives at condition.code, not condition.code.coding.  If I have 5 codings present, it applies to all.
22:27:48 <dbooth> grahame: Each of the codings establishes the semantic link, so each establishes the concept.
22:28:13 <dbooth> lloyd: No, if you have 5 codings present, you don't have 5 indep concepts, you have 1 that is a specialization of all 5.
22:29:02 <dbooth> grahame: you have 5 that are concept links in their own right, plus one one combined concept.
22:29:54 <dbooth> ... It's work marking up each one with its own concept, plus one for the combined concept.
22:31:22 <dbooth> lloyd: If we declare that the concept lives at all three levels (code, coding, codeableConcept) then ...
22:31:58 <dbooth> ... the problem is we can't have the concept not try to live at all three levels simultaneously.
22:32:13 <dbooth> thomas: is this all just related to inference?
22:32:22 <dbooth> lloyd: yes.
22:36:29 <dbooth> ... Suppose we create a linking ont that says the concept lives at all three levels, and see what happens in OWL
22:38:34 <dbooth> ... My concern: I want to see how this will work where you don't declare the concepts -- all you have is the instance, the binding declaration, the SNOMED ont and the binding ont.   I.e., no preprocessing done to link in the specific concept URL, because in general we cannot do that, because there will be so many code systems.
22:39:23 <dbooth> dbooth: Specific examples that should be tried?
22:40:05 <dbooth> lloyd: What I described covers my concerns.
22:40:18 <dbooth> ACTION: David to point tony to this discussion so that he can try the cases
22:40:18 <trackbot> 'David' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dbooth, dderour, dhansen2, dnewman, dshotton).
22:41:19 <dbooth> Topic: Build process
22:42:22 <dbooth> grahame: I'll add turtle generation to the build, along with JSON and XML.  Existing turtle is not fully in line with your latest design.
22:42:51 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2016/FHIR-tutorial/Constellations?logical -> Constellations doc
22:42:59 <dbooth> Our deliverables: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=RDF_for_Semantic_Interoperability#Deliverables_and_Editors
22:44:13 <dbooth> Topic: Constellations doc (describes FHIR RDF)
22:44:17 <dbooth> http://www.w3.org/2016/FHIR-tutorial/Constellations?logical
22:54:01 <dbooth> dbooth: suggest using only two columns
22:55:28 <dbooth> grahame: I have types on all things.
22:55:39 <dbooth> eric: Not needed except on root element
22:57:32 <dbooth> grahame: Need fhir:value under fhir:Reference.reference
22:57:56 <dbooth> ... Is fhir:value viable, instead of fhir:Reference.reference.value?
22:58:46 <dbooth> eric: Things like fhir:value are generic properties, with no constraints on their object type.  Their semantics are entirely contextual.
23:01:25 <dbooth> dbooth: If fhir:value is always a literal value, should be fine for OWL I think
23:03:48 <dbooth> ADJOURNED
23:03:54 <dbooth> Chair: David Booth
23:05:47 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
23:05:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-minutes.html dbooth
23:07:40 <dbooth> Present+ 5PM: David Booth, EricP, Grahame Grieve, Lloyd McKenzie, Rob Hausam, Thomas Lukasik
23:07:44 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
23:07:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-minutes.html dbooth