I have posted a new version of the approach to the wiki at
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:ValueSet_approach.pdf
Maybe we can discuss this at the Wed meeting this week.
Tony Mallia
Here is where I think we landed today on decimal
fhir:decimal rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf fhir:Element ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty fhir:fractionDigits ;
owl:maxQualifi
Yes Paul,
In the case of comparison on Quantity you have to consider units. There are no
units on decimal.
Tony
From: Paul A. Knapp [mailto:pkn...@pknapp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 3:15 PM
To: Anthony Mallia; i...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS
Subject: Re: Decision on decimal
Hi Tony
CodeThingy has become Term.Code as discussed below.
Tony
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Mallia
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:12 PM
To: w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject: RE: Re: CodeableThingy
We need to name CodeableThingy and other Thingy's which were temporar
Attached is the OWL you provided. Maybe there was something else?
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 7:03 PM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject: Re: CodeableThingy
In the OWL XML I provided, I used
PM, David Booth
mailto:da...@dbooth.org>> wrote:
I would be inclined to try to align more with existing FHIR naming than
SNOMED-CT naming. Since we're not using an abstract superclass approach, how
about calling it a fhir:CodeableConcept?
David
On 07/15/2015 07:14 PM, Anthony Mallia
We need to name CodeableThingy and other Thingy's which were temporary names.
Here is a suggestion of how the structure might be named. Reminder that even if
the original FHIR XML element was a CodeableConcept, Coding or code, when in
the RDF space it will always be the CodeableThingy sparsely po
There is a new side by side comparison document V6 on the wiki which also
includes CodeableThingy.
Tony Mallia
-Original Message-
From: David Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:22 PM
To: i...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS
Subject: Agenda July 14 HL7 RDF / W3
I have posted the new version
http://wiki.hl7.org/images/2/25/FHIR_RDF_Sample_side_by_side_comparisons.pdf
To see all the current stored versions you can go to
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:FHIR_RDF_Sample_side_by_side_comparisons.pdf
This next version shows terminology binding in a
I had not updated the side by side comparisons in place so you should look at
http://wiki.hl7.org/images/1/19/FHIR_RDF_Sample_side_by_side_comparisons_v2.pdf
wWhich is the latest
Tony
-Original Message-
From: David Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 5:43 PM
To:
25, 2015 1:16 AM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: David Booth; i...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS; Peter Ansell; Matthew
Horridge
Subject: Re: RDF information content and FHIR RDF requirement #14
Hi Everyone,
We indeed will be moving Protégé 5 to the new OWL API in the next few weeks,
which will allow
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 5:15 PM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: David Booth; i...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS
Subject: Re: RDF information content and FHIR RDF requirement #14
Hi Tony,
There has been gradual work on this area for a while. OWLAPI-4 has support for
JSONLD, via the
David,
Obviously this is an important discussion.
Requirement 14 says the RDF instance (not FHIR XML or FHIR JSON) must be
capable of being opened without further modification. When the instance is
opened it is expected to form closure with the "Model" or Ontology of FHIR
which is exchanged pr
I have added the example to the page:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Examples_For_Driving_FHIR_Ontology_Development
The example involves multiple resources and is aimed at detecting whether a
prescription poses a risk of adverse reaction.
Tony Mallia
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 3:27 PM
To: Pat Hayes; Anthony Mallia
Cc: David Booth; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; HL7 ITS
Subject: RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
I agree.
Thanks,
Leo
>-Original Message-
>From: Pat Hayes [mailto:pha...@ihmc.us]
>Sent: Sunday, March 08, 20
David,
I believe that this is an important aspect to distinguish between the type or
TBox and the instance or ABox. A simple justification is that they come from
different authorities (and end points) - HL7 or an EHR system.
However I would strongly recommend that we DO NOT REDEFINE Ontology f
expression editor uses Manchester Syntax so I am used to it.
Tony Mallia
EDMOND SCIENTIFIC COMPANY (ESC)
From: Marc Twagirumukiza [mailto:marc.twagirumuk...@agfa.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 5:54 PM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Lloyd McKenzie; Jim McCusker; David Booth; HL7 ITS;
owner
Lloyd,
RDF, RDFS and OWL can all be expressed in RDF/XML. I am using it all the time
out of Protégé.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 2:17 PM
To: Jim McCusker
Cc: Anthony Mallia; Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS;
owner-...@lists.hl7
Jim,
Thanks for the clarification. I have not kicked the tires on punning.
Tony
From: Jim McCusker [mailto:mcc...@rpi.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:37 AM
To: Lloyd McKenzie; Anthony Mallia
Cc: Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c
semweb HCLS
Subject: Re
thoughts to try to move this along.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:10 AM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c
semweb HCLS
Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
Well, the
Lloyd – that is called a pun and is possible in that the same IRI for both an
individual and a class. The impact on reasoners may be complex.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:06 AM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7
us
identity uniqueness.
If we were to get distributed RDF Ontology support where the IRI’s might be
network dereferenceable we would have a conflict.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 8:46 AM
To: Marc Twagirumukiza
Cc: Anthony Mallia; David Booth
reactionSeverity ValueSet which would have an IRI of
http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/reactionSeverity and its display will be determined by
rdfs:label value derived from ValueSet.name.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Marc
Marc,
There is probably some right balance between having the prefix state the
namespace or to have the dot notation as in FHIR.
However there are some base FHIR URIs which might deserve prefixes:
http://hl7.org/fhir/structuredefinition/ (when the FHIR website moves there)
http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/
Here is a proposed process for getting to the ITS specification and Proof of
Concept (POC)
RDF FHIR ITS Project Process
1. Select sample resource(s)
2. Manually create sample RDF Resource models (ontology) from profiles
(dep on 1)
3. Manually create sample RDF Resource insta
There is a new version of the RDF Terminology mappings:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:Terminology_binding_in_FHIR.pdf
Based on the last discussion I have
. Aligned it with the Primitive Datatype document
. Added Codeable Concept
. Added ValueSet declaration mapping
. Added ValueSet bind
To: i...@lists.hl7.org; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org >> w3c semweb HCLS
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux; Claude Nanjo; Anthony Mallia
Subject: FHIR examples for driving ontology developments?
To coordinate and speed our efforts, it would be helpful to choose some initial
FHIR examples that we
, 2015 1:50 PM
To: Lloyd McKenzie; Robert Hausam
Cc: Anthony Mallia; Sajjad Hussain; w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject: Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements
I have listed the proposed wordings for requirement #11 that I have seen so far:
http://wiki.hl7.org
I have posted a document on the HL7 Wiki discussing FHIR Datatypes to OWL
mapping - in particular the treatment of primitive types.
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:FHIR_Datatypes_OWL_Mapping.pdf
There is also a link to the document from the FHIR RDF Mapping page
http://wiki.hl7.org/inde
Rob,
Thanks for the great reference. Do you know whether Pellet and the ICV
extension is available for Protégé 5?
Tony
From: Robert Hausam [mailto:rrhau...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 12:06 PM
To: Lloyd McKenzie
Cc: Anthony Mallia; Sajjad Hussain; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS
Thanks Lloyd,
I am using Hermit as the reasoner and will play with the declarations you
mentioned.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 11:10 AM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Sajjad Hussain; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject
Lloyd,
This is the pattern that is used by TopQuadrant in its XSD to OWL conversion
and the FHIR generation was shared by Cecil. The advantage of this mechanism is
that all subclasses of Patient also are subclasses of the Anonymous Ancestor
which is the Class Expression “hasPhoneNumber max 3 Pho
Maybe in the light of the requirements 1 & 2 we can say that a FHIR resource
instance, conformant to a profile, when transformed to RDF will be conformant
to the OWL equivalent of the profile. Whether there is failure detection or not
by OWL itself would be out of scope and could be validated by
I have posted a document on the HL7 Wiki discussing bindings to terminology and
a middle ground proposal for constructing the FHIR RDF coding instance.
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:Terminology_binding_in_FHIR.pdf
There is also a link to the document from the FHIR RDF Mapping page
htt
David,
It might be worth going over a set of Use Cases to frame where transformation
(in both directions) between an HL7 message and RDF might be used.
In the FHIR - RDF scenario of consuming system and producing system (the
information source) the following patterns are options for consideratio
Tony
-Original Message-
From: David Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 9:41 AM
To: Anthony Mallia; Lloyd McKenzie
Cc: Vipul Kashyap; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHI
see why we can’t have it both ways.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:31 PM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Vipul Kashyap; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
Lloyd,
Each Profile ( or group of profiles) would be in its own ontology which might
import the raw FHIR type ontology and restrict/extend it. This means that when
we bind from the instance to the type, the type is in the named profile
ontology (unambiguous).
All importing in my approach is done
Peter,
The experiments with the separation of the Ontologies SNOMED, FHIR (Profile)
and FHIR instance support the argument not to combine since you can make
references across Ontologies without putting them into one.
The OWL Import statement works very well so when you are selecting a SNOMED
co
I agreed to post the high level concept topics to the list.
Here is the list of aspects or topics for the high level mapping of FHIR – RDF.
We don’t need to dive into them yet – when we are ready we can do some slides.
There is no particular logic to the sequence.
Containment and Structure
Compl
Tim,
The reference was extremely useful and fits into one of the aspects under
investigation which is how to declare the FHIR Schema and FHIR Profiles in RDF
such that the constructed RDF instances are well formed and can be translated
into FHIR XML. We need to go both ways not just FHIR to RDF.
Lloyd,
Agreed that the FHIR/RDF would only be for FHIR. Other standard mappings would
be independent.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 3:03 PM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject: Re: Minutes of
Lloyd and David,
We should formally collect the requirements for the effort.
Rob and I have started thinking about the vision of where this might go. Making
a transliteral or verbatim representation of FHIR is certainly a stepping point
but I believe that there are other mappings which need to
Agreed that this is simplistic but can be extended to cover more sophisticated
RDF (OWL) expressions.
Tony
From: graha...@gmail.com [mailto:graha...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Grahame Grieve
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:05 AM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Lloyd McKenzie; Marc Twagirumukiza; David
Lloyd,
If we are rendering FHIR defined by both the schema and a profile we would want
to declare the Valueset as the type which determines the extension of values
allowed as Marc has done. There are various ways to interpret this - one of
which is that Gender is a subclass of Code (I think this
I am wondering whether there should not be a work topic to cover high level
concept mapping to RDF.
Examples of this could be how are Coded Terms (e.g. ICD11 and SNOMED CT) and
Relationships (e.g. Act Role Participation) represented.
This could be influenced by what approaches are already taken
David,
It looks good. Maybe there should be a reference specifically to the
terminology groups who are working with RDF - IHTSDO and ICD -11 for example.
Tony
-Original Message-
From: David Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 11:19 PM
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w
, Plan which are key concepts discussed every day.
Tony
From: peter.hend...@kp.org [mailto:peter.hend...@kp.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:48 PM
To: mcc...@rpi.edu
Cc: Anthony Mallia; cna...@cognitivemedicine.com; da...@dbooth.org;
e...@w3.org; michel.dumont...@gmail.com; public-semweb-lifesci@w3
Marc,
There is not a location so far for posting any material – it is at an early
stage.
Tony Mallia
From: Marc Twagirumukiza [mailto:marc.twagirumuk...@agfa.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 4:17 AM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: cna...@cognitivemedicine.com; da...@dbooth.org; e...@w3.org
.hend...@kp.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:33 PM
To: michel.dumont...@gmail.com
Cc: da...@dbooth.org; Anthony Mallia; e...@w3.org;
cna...@cognitivemedicine..com; rafael.richa...@va.gov;
public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: Propose an HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic Interoperability?
We a
50 matches
Mail list logo
