Meeting minutes
RDF Lists #76
<Github> https://
dbooth: Preferences on RDF lists?
houcemeddine: No opinion.
jim: Keep R4 for OWL compatibility.
gaurav: Keep R4
eric: Pref RDF lists, and use a transformation for OWL folks.
dbooth: R4
eric: R4 would complicate shex.
rob: Pref RDF lists.
eric: narrative.div has a direct string value, not an object.
dbooth: example: fhir:div "<div>…</div>"
dbooth: I view that as a bug. It should be an object, to avoid potential OWL clash of ddatatype vs object property
ISSUE: Should narrative.div be an object property or datatype property?
rob; Willing to be persuaded .. . . (lost him)
gaurav: I could live with either option, so I don't feel strongly one way or another.
eric: Worried about deviating from the model.
rob: why?
eric: Because you can't have a fhir:index list if you have a list of scalars directly.
dbooth: Views?
rob: RDF lists
gaurav: Either option
houcemeddine; Either
jim: Both fine for me.
AGREED: Adopt RDF lists
Should FHIR datatype values have an rdf:type? #106
<Github> https://
dbooth: I think it's too late to consider for this R5 ballot
eric: explicit is nice, but terse is nice also.
AGREED: Table this for the moment.
Modifier extensions #93
<Github> https://
dbooth: opinions?
rob: somewhat persuaded by option 6
jim: option 6
houcemeddine: option 6
gaurav: option 6. FHIR validator is ridiculously specific about validating all modifier fields. Not sure how we'll replicate that.
eric: option 6.
dbooth: ok w option 6
AGREED: Go with option 6.
eric: I'm editing things at https://
dbooth: things to vote tomorrow:
1. Shortening property names
2. RDF Lists #76
3. Modifier extensions #93
4. Concept IRI
5. fhir:v
<Github> https://
<Github> https://
ADJOURNED