– DRAFT –
FHIR RDF

Replacing fhir:value

https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/104

AGREED: Eliminate options 0 and 1

jim: Prov ont has prov:value . One axiom, domain prov:Entity . Range is not stated.

dbooth: If it is not limited to being a datatype property, thenn it will have the same problem as rdf:value.
… Also would mean using yet another namespace.

houcemeddine: prov:value a owl:DatatypeProperty

dbooth: Ranked preference?

eric: v, literal, scalar, prov:value

gaurav: literal, v, prov:value, scalar

houcemeddine: v, prov:value, literal, scalar

jim: prov:value, literal, v, scalar

dbooth: v, scalar/literal, prov:value

AGREED: Eliminate scalar and prov:value

dbooth: Two candidates now are v and literl.

eric: FHIR folks could choos literal for something else.

eric: v

gaurav: v

houcemeddine: v

jim: v

AGREED: choose fhir:v

Concept IRIs

https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/94

gaurav: FHIR TSMG group voted to add IRI stems to terminology.hl7.org site.

https://confluence.hl7.org/display/TA/Teleconference+2022-07-28

gaurav: The only outstanding concern was to have full commitment and support from FHIR RDF. Asked us to vote to confirm that we will provided commitment and support for managing the IRI stems: 1. Provid initial set of IRI stems. 2. In the future, if we learn of an IRI stem for something that's in terminology.hl7.org, we'll add it. 3. If HTA adds a new code system they cn ask us for an IRI stem.
… They want to ensure there's always someone at our end to look after this.

AGREED: All agreed to confirm that we will provided commitment and support for managing the IRI stems: 1. Provid initial set of IRI stems. 2. In the future, if we learn of an IRI stem for something that's in terminology.hl7.org, we'll add it. 3. If HTA adds a new code system they cn ask us for an IRI stem.

gaurav: Need to add something to the FHIR spec, where it defines a type called URI
… If you have a system/code pair, and you set it to the identifier for 3986, then we should add a second row for IRI 3987.

https://build.fhir.org/identifier-registry.html

eric: I like the idea.

AGREED: Add 3987 to the table at https://build.fhir.org/identifier-registry.html

RDF lists #76

<Github> https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/76 : How should list ordering be preserved in R5?

eric: Should have said to click the turtle button also.

dbooth: opinion?

gaurav: leaning R4

eric: leaning lists

houcemeddine: leaning R4

jim: pref lists

dbooth: R4

eric: want to wait until tuesday.

Modifier extensions #93

<Github> https://github.com/w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf/issues/93 : How should modifier extensions be handled in R5?

eric: No options are currently implemented.

dbooth: Option -1 could be to say that modifierExtensions are not supported in FHIR RDF.

dbooth; Options on the table are 0, -1 and 6.

dbooth: Re option -1, I would would be against that, because i do not want to give the FHIR community any reason to give us the boot.

dbooth: option 6 vs 0?

eric: It's not implemented in the HAPI code that I wrote.

rob: leaning 6

eric: 6

gaurav: 6

houcemeddine: 6
… but for simplicity, some may want option 0

dbooth: 0
… seems less risk.

rob: could be persuaded for option 0

ACTION: DBooth to study option 6 examples, and return to this issue on Tuesday.

ADJOURNED