14:58:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #hcls
14:58:55 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/08/04-hcls-irc
14:59:01 <dbooth> rrsagent, make logs public
14:59:08 <dbooth> Meeting: FHIR RDF
14:59:11 <dbooth> Chair: David Booth
15:07:42 <dbooth> Topic: RDF Lists
15:08:01 <dbooth> jim: About to make PR for OWL API change
15:08:16 <dbooth> jim: Go through with that design, given the OWL issues?
15:10:38 <dbooth> jim: We could supply a SPARQL construct to turn RDF lists into something fully OWL compliant.
15:13:08 <dbooth> ACTION: Jim to make a SPARQL construct for converting RDF lists into something OWL compliant
15:13:18 <dbooth> https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/76
15:15:16 <dbooth> Topic: We should not use fhir:value for non-hoisted scalar properties #104
15:15:53 <dbooth> jim: Tested rdf:value in Protege and it worked.
15:21:29 <dbooth> dbooth: It occurs to me 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.
15:23:10 <dbooth> jim: With owl:topDataProperty, every individual is related to every individual in the world.
15:23:40 <dbooth> ... which might cause reasoner issues.
15:24:29 <dbooth> jim: Same problem (with rdf:value) exists with rdf:first .
15:24:46 <dbooth> dbooth: OWL is being our biggest problem!
15:25:22 <dbooth> jim: Should we pivot to being fully OWL compliant, or go for an RDF-oriented workflow.
15:25:43 <dbooth> dbooth: I don't think we want to alienate the OWL community.
15:27:32 <dbooth> gaurav: Lean toward being OWL compliant.
15:30:06 <dbooth> jim: Eric likes the brevity of Turtle lists.  We could switch to a different list vocabulary.
15:30:18 <dbooth> ... I lean toward being OWL valid.
15:30:32 <dbooth> rob: Lean toward OWL compliant -- a priority.
15:31:02 <dbooth> dbooth: Want to Eric's input on this too.
15:31:42 <dbooth> dbooth: R4 is OWL compliant, BTW.
15:32:32 <dbooth> Topic: How should modifier extensions be handled in R5?  #93
15:40:43 <dbooth> Given that we only have bad options, I'm not sure it's worth try to make a change in R5?
15:42:23 <dbooth> rob: To me the problem is the same in FHIR JSON or XML.  If you have an anti-prescription, you have to know not to do certain things.
15:45:30 <dbooth> gaurav: Fine to stay with R4 solution, option 0.
15:45:52 <dbooth> jim: Sounding like option 0 is the way to go.
15:46:06 <dbooth> dbooth: Also want to get Eric's input on this.
15:50:54 <dbooth> Topic: Concept IRIs
15:51:19 <dbooth> gaurav: Next step for us is to file a Jira issue for the changes we want.
15:52:49 <dbooth> ACTION: Gaurav to follow up on TSMG voting and Jira after the vote
15:53:54 <dbooth> Present: Rob Hausam, Gaurav Vaidya, Jim Balhoff, David Booth
15:54:20 <dbooth> ADJOURNED
15:54:28 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:54:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/08/04-hcls-minutes.html dbooth
18:06:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #hcls
18:06:29 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/08/04-hcls-irc
18:06:34 <dbooth> rrsagent, make logs public
18:06:49 <dbooth> s/Want to Eric/Want to get Eric