Meeting minutes
extending primitive types
https://
david: I think that option 2b is better than 2.
emily: agreed
eric: Not sure of implications of having birthDate be both a datatype property and an individual.
david: We're looking at this comparison: https://
brad: would a SPARQL query be harder in option 2 or 2b?
eric: option 2 has an easier property path than 2b.
gopi: I prefer 2.
gaurav: I prefer 2b
emily: I prefer any option that reduces bnodes
david: 1a vs 1b?
eric: I like {2, 2a} better than {1a, 1b}
brad: I also don't like 1a or 1b.
gaurav: Pref 2 and 2b better also.
david: Propose dropping 1a and 1b from consideration.
eric: seconded. Brad also.
AGREED: dropping 1a and 1b from consideration
david: Preferences of 3 vs 2 or 2b?
eric: prefer 3 over 2, 2b
eric: I think 3 would be on the right path toward modifier extensions also.
david: I also prefer 3 over 2 and 2b
brad: I also prefer 3 over 2 and 2b.
david: Propose dropping 2 and 2b from consideration
eric: seconded.
james and gopi: Also prefer 3 over 2 and 2b.
gaurav: sligtly prefer 2, but okay with going with 3.
AGREED: dropping 2 and 2b from consideration
david: 3b removes one level of property path and declares the extension object as a fhir:Extension.
eric: Not strictly necessary to declare the type as fhir:Extension (because it's known from the range of _active).
brad: prefer 3b over 3.
david: prefer 3b over 3.
eric: I like 3b also.
david: Propose that we drop 3 from consideration
gaurav: seconded.
AGREED: drop 3 from consideration
ADJOURNED