– DRAFT –
FHIR RDF

Issue 178

w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf#178

tim: How to generate the class names for unnamed FHIR structures?

AGREED: Use the Elment Id, eg in https://hl7.org/fhir/observation-definitions.html#Observation.referenceRange

tim: [[

{

"id" : "Observation.component:DiastolicBP",

"path" : "Observation.component",

https://build.fhir.org/bp.profile.json.html

]]

Issue 182

w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf#182

(Group is leaning toward option 4, but discussing whether to use a different namespace for ALL FHIR datatypes -- not only primitives)

AGREED: Option 4, but use the same fhirdt: prefix for all FHIR datatypes

ACTION: Tim to update PR HL7/kindling#200

issue 181

w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf#181

AGREED: Eliminate unused namespaces from fhir.ttl ontology

Issue 175

tim: Structure defs can be used to done, e.g., an OMOP model

tim: https://build.fhir.org/logical.html

tim: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhir-omop-ig/StructureDefinition-Episode.html

ericp: Use case: you want to use FHIR's schema abilities. FSH encourages you to build your own models using FHIR types.

tim: There are actually FHIR Logical models that are part of the core spec, just as there are profiles, like VitalSigns
… We could gen OWL classes for them

tim: https://build.fhir.org/event.html

ericp: Should make the code available, to gen ontologies for other logical models and profiles that are not in the FHIR spec

dbooth: Could the generated profile class names conflict with any other class names we generate?

tim: An example http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/vitalsigns

tim: The fact that resources, datatypes and all other structure defs are under the StructureDev/ subdir, ensures uniqueness.
… Every US insurance company has to support the US core profile.

AGREED: Go ahead with issue 175, and put the profile and logical model ontologies in separate files.

Issue 167

w3c/hcls-fhir-rdf#167

dbooth: It feels like this may be too much to fully implement for R6, but it sounds like you're suggesting putting hooks for it into the R6 ont

tim: Yes

dbooth: I like the idea a lot, but concerned about what we put into R6

AGREED: This would be non-breaking change, so wait for after R6 for it.

R6 timeline

dbooth: Propose getting ITS approval next week, probably Wed 3pm Boston time.

tim: I think I can make the namespace change for datatypes everywhere.

Next meeting

tim: Out Thursday

HAPI

ericp: I'm digging through HAPI FHIR, and tried R4 parser on current examples (R6?), and it failed a whole bunch.
… It doesn't parse extensions on extensions. Fixing that.
… Want to eliminate all errors and then rebase for R5 changes.
… Detlef has a version that works on old tests (R4)

detlef: But it produces somethign that looks like R5

ADJOURNED