Meeting minutes
How should modifier extensions be handled in R5? #93
dbooth: The essential problem I see is that EVERYTHING inside a resource that has been modified (modifierExtension) must not be asserted.
eric: If we hide only the resource type, that may be safe enough.
… That at least makes the common cases clear.
houcemeddine: Could have been done in a better way. But they want extensible data.
eric: Propose that for modified resources, change the resource name to have a leading underbar.
… For other elements that are modified, prepend an underbar to the modified property.
dbooth: I'd really like to get more input from others in the RDF community.
eric: If we ask, it might bias toward undue vigilence.
dbooth: Suggest we reach out to Harold, Emily, Chris Mungall
ACTION: DBooth to ask those people for input
We should not use fhir:value for non-hoisted scalar properties #104
https://
dbooth: I realized that rdf:value might not solve the problem anyway, because we need something that would only be used as an OWL datatype property, but there is nothing in RDF to prevent rdf:value from being used as an object property.
eric: This problem should have been faced in owl already. Need a property that is a superproperty of all datatype properties.
eric: Maybe there's something in the Relation Ont.
dbooth: Or look in OWL, or make up a property in a FHIR namespace.
ACTION: DBooth to look into those 3 options.
Maybe fhir:scalar or fhir:v or fhir:literal
ADJOURNED