Meeting minutes
Issue 77
https://
Discussing 4a vs 4b
Gopi: Suggestion changing birthDateObject to birthDateExtension.
david: good idea
AGREED: Prefer 4b over 4a
David: 3b vs 4b?
gaurav: prefer 3b
emily: agree
gopi: agree
AGREED: Prefer 3b over 4b
david: Compare 5a vs 3U
emily: Don't like the extra ont relationships.
gopi: still prefer 3b over both of these
gaurav: calling them extensions might be simpler.
gaurav: prefer not to create all these new properties
gaurav: The fhir:Extension in 3bU seems like it could be fhir:Boolean
david: Or it could be both a fhir:Extension and a fhir:Boolean.
David: 5a, 3U or 3bU vs 3b?
emily: Prefer 3b over all of these.
gopi: 3bU makes sense if you are adding a certainty.
david: We should probably get eric's input before eliminating these, to hear his perspective.
gaurav: Slightly prefering 3bU over 3b.
gopi: One advantage of 3bU is when you're entering data you can just use that new predicate directly.
david: Not sure of the impact of 3gU (and other RDF-style options) on conversion from RDF back to JSON. Assuming that the standard machinery would not know about the extension. Seems it would at least require converting the extension URL from an RDF node to a string.
rob: might be able to pull in a package to tell the machinery about the extension.
Action: Gaurav to spin up on JSON-LD framing
david: more ideas to explore for these options?
gopi: What about data validation?
… Need to validate cases, using SPARQL queries.
david: Yes, important to consider impact on validation.
gopi: Been looking at RDF reification. Extensions are similar in my mind, for the Certainty example.
david: For the fhir:active example, RDF reification would be applicable, because "Certainty" is a statement about the boolean statement. But I don't think reification would be applicable in other extension examples, such as the birthDate example, which is just a matter of adding more information (time of birth).
ADJOURNED