Meeting minutes
List ordering #76
<Github> https://
jim: In FHIR RDF, would rdf:first ever be used both as object and datatype property?
eric: No, not without hoisting scalars.
eric: And someone using OWL would not have run into this already, because OWL would already complain of using rdf:first if they had used an RDF list.
dbooth: The issue is that an RDF list could hold both scalars and objects and that would cause a conflict in OWL.
ACTION: Eric to post a message to semantic-web list complaining about this OWL problem.
dbooth: I don't think it would be proper to declare rdf:first to be an OWL object property, because it's defined by RDF without that restriction.
jim: People use dc properties as annotation properties.
eric: The basis of the problem is that OWL won't allow it to hold both object and datatype values
Modified extensions #93
<Github> https://
eric: Propose renaming modified properties, with leading underbar.
dbooth: I don't think we have time to work out the details and test it out.
rob: Concerned this proposal might be overly cautious.
eric: Desiderata should be if some of the data is non-monotonic, then it should be an explicit act to query that data.
dbooth: Given how little time we have, I would be strongly against a proposal that does not have examples and working in the playground.
dbooth; Another example of non-mono is MedicationRequest.doNotPerform
eric: But that is less likely to be accidentally ignored, because it's documented up front.
rob: Could live with option 6.
gaurav: From FHIRCat perspective, we have the ability to try something out with this round of balloting. Then we have another project to convert data to FHIR RDF. Could wait until next ballot.
… Could leave w R4 and then try changing it properly on the next round.
… Leaning toward trying the new thing and see if it works.
houcemeddine: We don't have time to make adjustments. Or we can define rules about this in the spec.
rob: Is there any concern about confusion w underscore and JSON representation?
eric: JSON makes it easier by reserving the underbar--prepended properties.
rob: But it would have an entirely differnet meaning in JSON and RDF?
eric: Yes.
jim: Not sure what I think. Not able to picture the solution.
dbooth: I also think there's a lot of value in having the RDF exactly mirror the XML and JSON. Easier to understand and mentally translate.
rob: Are we dealing with only modifierExtensions, or also modifier elements?
eric: Anything with a modifier on it, if it's a property it has a leading underbar, and if it's an element then the element gets a leading underbar.
rob: With Observation.status, only if the value is "entered-in-error" is it a modifier. Not a modifier for other values. If we are goign to address modifiers then we should address that also.
rob; Changed my mind: rather stick with R4.
ACTION: Eric to put option 6 examples into github issue.
ADJOURNED