Meeting minutes
Ballot comments
dbooth: Rob got them submitted.
rob: I assigned them all to ITS.
… I heard people mention late Feb deadline for completing them. We should plan to have them done by early Feb.
FHIR spec build progress
jim: Messaged Grahame last week. He said he'd try to get to it in the next few days.
dbooth: I think we can wait a little longer for Grahame.
SPARQL Update code
jim: Made a PR for limiting the SPARQL update to non-OWL use od RDF lists: https://
eric: You could do a ?p query and filter for the ?p that start with the fhir: namespace.
… If you had other data using lists, it would avoid changing them.
eric: I can imagine having some other bio data in the same RDF.
dbooth: Agreed. I think we want restrict the changes to the fhir: uses of RDF lists.
ACTION: Jim to change this SPARQL accordingly.
dbooth: Would be good to test this for scalability, and ensure it works.
eric: We should offer a few alternatives implementations.
… You can use synthea to generate data for testing, convert to JSON then to RDF.
jim: My data is R4.
Concept IRIs
gaurav: Updated the UTG proposal.
… Back to using unique ID for our purpose. Not ideal, because we need a new type for IRI.
dbooth: Should we meet w UTG?
rob: Meeting today and in two weeks.
rob: Recently spun off the term mgmt governance group. Trying to figure out the respective roles. Now TSMG has taken a big chunk of the work, including TSO. Other than making rec to TSMG, not sure what the vocab group can do. They'd have to make the decision.
gaurav: When we pitched the idea of concept IRIs, we started with vocab group, then went to TSMG, then back to vocab. May do the same thing this time.
gaurav: My dream scenario would be to iterate on this in jira, then figure out what concerns they have.
… But it seems that jira tickets don't get much attention.
rob: But zulip gets attention.
gaurav: Process is to put in the request, then put in the changes to show them what it looks like.
https://
rob: UTG proposals are about content, but structural changes need to be through github.
gaurav: only need a new type for IRIs.
rob: That can be a UTG request to add that concept.
… There's a UTG subgroup of TSMG, and they'd be responsible for the changes.
rob: Is an IRI stem always an IRI?
dbooth: I think it should be.
eric: We should prohibit things like a partial domain name.
gaurav: TSG would have to agree both to use uniqueID and to add an IRI type. If they want it done as an extension instead, then that would be more work.
gaurav: Why does NamingSystem.identifier not work?
rob: It only identifies the naming system resource instance.
eric: We'd want them to be same when possible.
gaurav: Suppose we add an identifier to the Loinc code sys resource, the idneifier class has a system field, so the system could be a naming system.
rob: I have a feeling that won't fly. But not sure we need to.
… If these IRI stems act as unique IDs then it's appropriate to put them into the Code System.
gaurav: Every time I see a Code Sys, there's a Naming Sys that goes with it. But we could say that IRI stems only make sense for a Code System.
rob: Naming System just says how things can be referenced.
… The other IDs will end up in Naming System, because that's part of the TSMG practice.
eric: Do we want some governance to support changes to the IRI stem?
rob: Purpose of the repo is to account for changes like that.
gaurav: Both of them have a Period that says when they were valid.
eric: Use case would be combinign old data (using old IRI stem) with new data using the current IRI stem.
gaurav: To what should the system point?
dbooth: Point to the rdf.html page?
ACTION: Eric and DBooth to read the document.
ADJOURNED