Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements consensus & Common model work

On today's call we reached consensus on FHIR ontology requirements, though we did not yet formally approve them because the HL7 co-chair was unable to join the call: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements Guoqian Jaing and Eric Prud'hommeaux also discussed work at Mayo o

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

Yes, Samson, that's a great reminder. I think that Lloyd may have stated that earlier - but I didn't repeat it, and it's pretty easy to overlook. Rob On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Samson Tu wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Robert Hausam wrote: > > Lloyd, that's certainly correct with

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

> On Feb 7, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Robert Hausam wrote: > > Lloyd, that's certainly correct with the "upper bound", given the conditions > that you describe. If an instance has 5 of "something" when it's declared > that it should have 4, then the reasoner can clearly determine that the > instance

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

the organizations with whom I hold governance positions >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Anthony Mallia >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Lloyd, >>>> >>>> This is the pattern that is used by TopQuadrant in its XSD to OWL >>>> conv

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

Robert Hausam Cc: Anthony Mallia; Sajjad Hussain; w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org <mailto: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:

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

we can > choose another option. > > Tony > > -Original Message- > From: David Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org] > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 1:50 PM > To: Lloyd McKenzie; Robert Hausam > Cc: Anthony Mallia; Sajjad Hussain; w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org > Sub

RE: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

, 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

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/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#11._Enable_Inference [[ #11. Enable Inference Option A: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference. Option B: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

t;> >> >> >> Having done that however the reasoned does not invalidate if there are 4 >> phone numbers (i.e. Open World). >> >> >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com] >> *Sent:* Satu

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

:06 PM > *To:* Lloyd McKenzie > *Cc:* Anthony Mallia; Sajjad Hussain; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; > i...@lists.hl7.org > > *Subject:* Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology > Requirements > > > > Lloyd, that's certainly correct with the "upper

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you. From: Lloyd McKenzie To: David Booth Cc: Sajjad Hussain , w3c semweb HCLS , "i...@lists.hl7.org" Date: 02/06/2015 08:30 PM Subject: Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call:

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

onversion 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 >>> PhoneNumber”. >>> >>> >>&

RE: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

; i...@lists.hl7.org Subject: Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements Lloyd, that's certainly correct with the "upper bound", given the conditions that you describe. If an instance has 5 of "something" when it's declared that it should

RE: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

: Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements Hi Tony, If you declare an instance has 4 of something, that those instances are disjoint and that the instance is a subclass of those instances that allow only 3 of something, the reasoner *should* declare the instance invalid

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

are 4 > phone numbers (i.e. Open World). > > > > Tony > > > > *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, February 07, 2015 10:48 AM > *To:* Sajjad Hussain > *Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org > *Subject:* Re: S

RE: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

: Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements You can also close the world declaritively. If I have a Patient with 3 phone numbers, the instance can declare it's a subclass of Patients with an upper bound of 3 on the number of phone numbers. You can do similar things fo

RE: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

ated by some rule language. Tony From: Sajjad Hussain [mailto:huss...@cs.dal.ca] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 12:06 AM To: Lloyd McKenzie; David Booth Cc: Sajjad Hussain; w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org Subject: Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements I agree

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

You can also close the world declaritively. If I have a Patient with 3 phone numbers, the instance can declare it's a subclass of Patients with an upper bound of 3 on the number of phone numbers. You can do similar things for the vocabulary. It's verbose, but it works. *Lloyd McKenzie*Consultan

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

I agree with Lloyd. However, we need to keep in mind that semantic web standard languages especially OWL rely on Open World Assumption (OWA): http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#StructureOfOntologies For validation purposes, while respecting OWA, it is still possible validate dat

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

I expect we'll need to be able to handle both open-world and closed-world versions of the ontology. Closed-world is essential to validation. If a profile says something is 1..1 and the instance doesn't have it, then that needs to be flagged as an error, which open-world wouldn't do. On the other

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

Hi Sajjad, On 02/04/2015 07:12 AM, Sajjad Hussain wrote: Hi All, Responding to Action # 2 carried during last call: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02 I would suggest the following wording for FHIR Ontology Require

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

Hi All, Responding to Action # 2 carried during last call: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02 I would suggest the following wording for FHIR Ontology Requirement # 11 (http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Onto

Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

On today's call we almost finished working out our FHIR ontology requirements. Only two points remain to be resolved: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements - Sajjad suggested that the wording of requirement #11 be changed to be clearer, and agreed to suggest new word