Meeting minutes
Properties with both scalar and object range #102
jim: Would option 2 also address the RDF list issue?
… Could maybe offer tooling to convert from OWL friendly version to SPAREQL friendly version
DBooth: Preferences?
… most in favor of #5.
dbooth: Would be strongly against having two versions
AGREED: option 5, not hoist scalars (same as R4)
eric: Should also bring awareness to the larger sem web coimmunity about this issue.
dbooth: I think it's a flaw in the OWL to discourage that.
This closes both #102 and #77
This also closes #103
How should modifier extensions be handled in RDF? #93
https://
eric: We want to prevent a FHIR processor from not noticing the modifier ext and processing the data naively.
eric: Without hoisting, if wwe rename properties that have modifier ext by giving them a leading underbar, then we take care of the backbone element and scalar case.
ACTION: Dbooth to propose options
Issue 69: Shorten dot-compound property names?
dbooth: Not aware of any problems. Implemented in the playground.
eric: FHIR folks are doing more to ensure that property names have a consistent meaning.
dbooth: And without hoisting, everything is an object property anyway.
AGREED: Shorten property names.
We should not use fhir:value for non-hoisted scalar properties #104
We could use rdf:value instead. That's what it was made for. Jim: That would not work with OWL.
eric: But you cannot do inference with literals anyway.
… I tried If the code is 123435, then some inference, but could not get it working.
jim: You have to make a class expression
ACTION: jim to look into whether rdf:value would work instead of fhir:value
Issue 76: Ordered lists
jim: PR almost ready for changes to parse the list
… Caveat: If you apply owl annotations to those axioms, those annotations don't get parsed. That would be hard to solve.
dbooth: Is anyone likely to do that?
jim: It won't be in our FHIR output with RDF lists.
… It would be weird to do.
… It would involve reifying the list axiom.
dbooth: Do we still want to go ahead w RDF lists?
eric: Still keen on using lists.
jim: Last week I tried out using non-RDF property names for first and rest, and it worked.
dbooth: We could potentially publicize that as a workaround for folks who are bothered by RDF lists.
ACTION: jim to try OWL example that uses a scalar value
Meet also on Tuesdays, same time?
eric: Maybe
rob: Probably
jim: Can do the second two
houcemeddine: okay for me.
ACTION: DBooth to announce additional meetings
Issue 95: References lack a type arc
dbooth: Grahame pointed out that this would be a breaking change to make the "type" property required in the case of an absolute URL reference, so it isn't a change we can make. And we can live with it anyway.
eric: This would mostly affect validation of local internal hospital networks.
dbooth: Close the issue with no change?
eric: Close with a note saying we do not validate cases with absolute URLs beyond what FHIR requires for validation.
AGREED: Close #95 with no change.
ADJOURNED