Meeting minutes
RDF Lists and OWL
jim: Still working on OWL API PR.
jim: Use of RDF lists is technically an OWL violation. But I've been looking at the OWL API to enable it to work properly with RDF lists anyway.
… Concensus seems to be that we want to RDF lists, even if it technically violates the OWL spec, provided that OWL tooling can use it.
eric: The other issue was whether fhir:value can be both a datatype and an object type.
… We could use separate properties for those if needed.
jim: Could also change all the lists to a different namespace.
eric: That's hilarious!
dbooth: That's one of several work-arounds that we could offer.
dbooth: Do we have consensus to continue going ahead with the RDF list approach provided that Jim is successful in getting it to work with OWL API?
eric: It would be easier to sell it if we could demonstrate that the namespace renameing hack works as a workaround
ACTOIN: jim to show the namespace renameing hack works as a workaround
a/ACTOIN/ACTION/
Concept IRIs
ACTION: Gaurav to sched followup with TSMG on Monday.
Properties with both scalar and object range: fhir:value inside of fhir:value #102
https://
jim: It causes reasoners to treat it as an annotation property -- loses the semantics.
eric: This is also a problem with fhir:Codes , because we're adopting the FHIR names for properties.
… Observation.code
jim: rdf:value is not a valid property name.
dbooth: Should we emit a different property name for datatype vs object properties?
jim: I like that idea, of using two property names.
eric: Easier to rename the scalar property.
dbooth: But FHIR JSON uses the word "value" for that, so I'd prefer to rename the valueX property. Might even call it literally fhir:valueX.
eric: Or fhir:_valueX
eric: Or fhir:value_X
houcemedine: or fhir;hasValue
AGREED: Use two different property names
Or also fhir:value_x.
rob: i prefer lower case x
… Because if it were a datatype it would start with a capital letter.
Dbooth: Preferences: value_x, value_x, value_x, value_x
AGREED: use fhir:value_x for object properties.
rob: Will this be only for properties that are union types or for all object properties?
eric: Oops, that's a problem. We didn't consider that.
ACTION: Rob to figure this out.
ACTION: Dbooth to look at what else we need to tie up for R5.
ADJOURNED