– DRAFT –
FHIR RDF

Concept IRIs

gaurav: Posted to zulip, but no response yet: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/194616-terminology-.2F-utg/topic/Meeting.20with.20UTG.20group.20to.20discuss.20incorporating.20IRI.20stems

FHIR RDF Playground

eric: More than half way through the implementation of the last feature we need for R5.
… Q: Preprocessor works in tandem w the @context generator.
… Last feature is to change properties like fhir:valueQuantity to fhir:value (and have the type in the RDF type).

dbooth: preprocessor needs to break apart that single property into two pieces of information?

eric: yes.

dbooth: hope to make the preprocessor as stable as possible, so that most tweaking can be done to the @context

eric: The content model in the JSON-LD @context needs to know what type it is.

Issues list

dbooth: Looking at issue 95: https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/95

eric: we should push back to the larger FHIR community to say the type property SHOULD be included if the reference URL is not relative. Would prefer a MUST.

eric: Does their validator deference to find out the type?
… Validation would ensure that it is the right type.

ACTION: DBooth to ask the FHIR community about requiring a type property when a ref is an absolute URI

Issue 93: How should modifier extensions be handled in R5?

Issue 70: FHIR rdf representation does not pass shex - canonical URL properties need metadata

dbooth: Closing this, because it will be caught by shex validation in the build process, so we will address then if it is still an issue.

In issue 77 (Simplifying primitive properties while still supporting FHIR extensions) https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/77 The issue of connecting FHIR extension element "_foo" to element "foo" does not necessarily have to be addressed in the preprocessor, because it is a static relationship -- it does not depend on the instance data -- so it could be included in the ontology instead of being generated in the instance data.

ADJOURNED