This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "FHIR Ontology Requirements"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(79 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<div style="background-color: white; border: 1px solid red; margin: 4px; padding: 2px; font-weight: bold; text-align: center; color:red">
 +
This page is OBSOLETE. RDF Work has moved [https://confluence.hl7.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=66922543 Here]</div>
 +
 +
 +
 
'''DRAFT'''
 
'''DRAFT'''
  
 +
== Desiderata ==
 +
How FHIR profiles are approached, designed, constrained, or extended should be based on a formal logical model. That model should be explicit and be developed prior to the profiles that result from it. Without such a model to operate from, FHIR will lack the semantic and structural consistency required to make FHIR computable.
 +
 +
== Requirements ==
 
Priorities are indicated using [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoSCoW_method MoSCoW] terms (MUST, SHOULD, COULD, WON'T).
 
Priorities are indicated using [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoSCoW_method MoSCoW] terms (MUST, SHOULD, COULD, WON'T).
  
−
1. '''(MUST)''' It must be possible to round-trip instance data from XML/JSON through RDF representation
+
=== 1. FHIR Instance Mappings ===
−
* This includes retaining information about order of repeating elements
+
'''(MUST)''' We must define lossless bi-drectional transformations from FHIR XML/JSON resource instances to FHIR RDF resource instances and vice versa.  FHIR RDF resource instance data that is transformed into FHIR XML resource instance data must validate against schemas and declared profiles.  This round-tripping must not be dependent on any information other than the definition of FHIR resources and data types.  (I.e. round-tripping must not be dependent on FHIR profiles, vocabulary definitions or other external information.)
−
: ''QUESTION: Is the order of repeating elements semantically significant in FHIR? I.e., would it affect or use of the interpretation of the information?''
 
−
:: ''ANSWER''(LM): Yes.  Or more specifically, it's allowed to be.  Order of medications in a list, order of names, etc. is required to be retained and, depending on the definition of the element, can have meaning.  As well, retaining order is essential to allow digital signature validation after round-tripping
 
−
* Needs to allow for extensions where-ever they can appear, including simple types (date, boolean, etc.)
 
  
−
2. '''(MUST?) We want to be able to represent instances as RDF and Profiles and schemas as OWL/RDFS
+
=== 2. FHIR Ontology Mappings ===
−
* LM: My leaning is to drop "schemas" from this.  Schemas are derived from profiles and schemas only exist for the root resources, whereas profiles will exist for all sorts of things that profiles won't.
+
'''(MUST)''' We must define lossless bi-directional transformations from FHIR Profile instances (XML/JSON/RDF) to OWL/RDFS ontology representations and vice versa
  
−
3. '''(MUST?)''' FHIR data with modifier extensions must be "safe" for RDF reasoning, i.e., the semantics of the RDF must be monotonic even in the presence of modifier extensions.
+
=== 3. Complete FHIR Coverage ===
 +
'''(MUST)''' The RDF representation of FHIR resource instance data must be capable of expressing all legal FHIR instances that make use of any valid FHIR profiles, including extensions. An RDF instance data representation that is limited to only a subset of possible FHIR instances is not acceptable.
  
−
4. '''(SHOULD?)''' RDF and/or OWL representations must support vocabulary bindings to code, Coding and CodeableConcept - including dealing with extensible value sets and multi-code system value sets
+
=== 4. Monotonic with Modifier Exensions ===
−
: ''QUESTION: I've reworded this to say "RDF and/or OWL representations" instead of "Syntax". Was this a correct interpretation?  If not, what was meant by "Syntax"?''
+
'''(MUST)''' FHIR RDF data with modifier extensions must be "safe" for RDF reasoning, i.e., the semantics of the RDF must be monotonic even in the presence of modifier extensions.
  
−
5. '''(SHOULD?)''' Syntax should enforce constraints that are representable in RDF (e.g. schema constraints, regular expressions, etc.)
+
=== 5. Vocabulary Bindings ===
−
: ''QUESTION: Does this mean that the RDF and/or OWL representations should take advantage of available native RDF or OWL ways of expressing constraints??''
+
'''(MUST)''' The FHIR ontology must support vocabulary bindings to code, Coding and CodeableConcept - including dealing with extensible value sets and multi-code system value sets.
  
−
6. '''(SHOULD?  COULD?)''' In the RDFS/OWL, should expose at least minimal annotation information for display
+
'''(SHOULD)''' The FHIR vocabulary representation should be able to leverage existing semantic web terminology representations (e.g. SNOMED-CT)
−
: ''QUESTION: Please clarify: What kinds of annotation information do you have in mind?''
 
  
−
7. To support inference it would help if datatypes (date, dateTime, value, etc.) were represented as IRIs (xsd) rather than as string literals.
+
=== 6. Enforce Constraints ===
−
: ''QUESTION: Some of the types (e.g. date) are the union of multiple xsd types (xs:date, xs:gYearMonth, xs:gYear). Can OWL/RDFS handle that?''
+
'''(SHOULD)''' The FHIR ontology should enforce constraints that are representable in OWL/RDF whenever possible, e.g. schema constraints, regular expressions, etc.
  
−
8. Clearly articulate the value of the new RDF/RDFS/OWL representation over the current XML/JSON representation
+
=== 7. Annotation Information ===
−
* Objective here isn't "you should do RDF/etc. instead of JSON/XML", but rather "these are the circumstances in which RDF/etc. would provide value-add"
+
'''(SHOULD)''' In the RDFS/OWL Ontology representation, should expose at least minimal annotation information for display in an ontology editor for use by humans
−
:: ''(DBooth) This seems like a helpful thing to do, but it does not sound like a requirement of the FHIR ontology itself.''
 
  
−
9. Enablement of OWL/RDFS inference – so we could identify use cases that cannot be easily done based on the XML/JSON representation
+
=== <strike>8. User Friendly</strike> ===
−
: ''QUESTION: What kinds of inference do you have in mind?''
+
<strike>RDF/OWL expressions should be (business, clinical) user friendly and understandable.</strike>  <br>
 +
''(This was felt to be unachievable.)''
  
−
10. A common OWL/RDFS representation for information model elements and medical terminology concepts.
+
=== 9. Datatype IRIs ===
−
* (LM)I'm not sure what this means. I think the scope of this project is limited solely to FHIR models and value sets?
+
'''(SHOULD)''' To support inference, datatypes (date, dateTime, value, etc.) should be represented as IRIs (xsd) rather than as string literals.
  
−
11. The FHIR ontology must capture all of the standard semantics of FHIR XML and JSON data that are independent of the choice of serialization.  (This is closely related to #1.)
+
=== <strike>10. Articulate Value</strike> ===
−
* Is there anything this statement adds that isn't implicit in #1?
+
<strike>Clearly articulate the value of the new RDF/RDFS/OWL representation over the current XML/JSON representation</strike>
−
:: ANSWER: (DBooth) No, it can be merged into #1.
+
<br>''(This will be a separate goal of the group, rather than a FHIR ontology requirement.)''
  
−
12. '''(SHOULD? COULD?)''' RDF/OWL expressions should be (business, clinical) user friendly and understandable
+
=== 11. Enable Inference ===
 +
'''(MUST)''' The FHIR ontology must support inference on FHIR instance data, both in use cases based on the open world assumption and in use cases based on the closed world assumption.
  
−
13. Transformations into FHIR must validate against Schemas and Profile
+
=== <strike>12. Common Model</strike> ===
−
* (LM) Not sure what this means  The RDF syntax will *be* FHIR - it won't be a translation into FHIR.  It'll just be one of the permitted syntaxes. If this means that data that is converted from RDF into the other syntaxes needs to be valid, I think that's covered by #1
+
<strike>Create a common OWL/RDFS representation for information model elements and medical terminology concepts.</strike> <br>''(This may be pursued as a separate project of the group.)''
  
−
14. Transformations into RDF must meet software quality checks including closure.  
+
=== <strike>13. Valid Against Schemas and Profiles</strike> ===
−
: ''QUESTION: What kinds of quality checks?  What is meant by "closure"?''
+
''(Merged into #1.)''
  
−
15. '''(MUST?)''' The RDF and RDFS/OWL expressions must be capable of expressing all legal FHIR instances and profiles. I.e. A syntax which is limited to only a subset of possible instances is not acceptable
+
=== 14. RDF Quality ===
 +
'''(MUST)''' Transformations into RDF must meet software quality checks including ontological closure.  The RDF instance which is transformed from FHIR XML or FHIR JSON must be capable of being opened without further modification by widely available tools including Protégé and the RDF must meet quality checks including successful closure of graphs - all the links are understood by the tool.
  
−
'''USE CASES'''
+
=== 15. Auto Generated ===
 +
'''(MUST)''' The FHIR ontology and FHIR RDF instance data mappings should be auto-generatable from the FHIR specification.
 +
 
 +
=== <strike>16. Profiles from OWL</strike> ===
 +
<strike>'''(MAY)''' We may find a way to transform OWL/RDF ontologies into FHIR profiles.</strike><br>''(Subsumed by #2)''
 +
 
 +
== USE CASES ==
  
 
Real world use cases that require and demonstrate the value of an RDF/OWL representation - TBD
 
Real world use cases that require and demonstrate the value of an RDF/OWL representation - TBD
−
 
  
 
* Identify (through extension profile properties) inheritance relationships to abstract concepts and properties that hold across resources.  E.g. "All orders", "All interventions", "All medications"
 
* Identify (through extension profile properties) inheritance relationships to abstract concepts and properties that hold across resources.  E.g. "All orders", "All interventions", "All medications"

Latest revision as of 20:27, 15 July 2021

This page is OBSOLETE. RDF Work has moved Here


DRAFT

Desiderata

How FHIR profiles are approached, designed, constrained, or extended should be based on a formal logical model. That model should be explicit and be developed prior to the profiles that result from it. Without such a model to operate from, FHIR will lack the semantic and structural consistency required to make FHIR computable.

Requirements

Priorities are indicated using MoSCoW terms (MUST, SHOULD, COULD, WON'T).

1. FHIR Instance Mappings

(MUST) We must define lossless bi-drectional transformations from FHIR XML/JSON resource instances to FHIR RDF resource instances and vice versa. FHIR RDF resource instance data that is transformed into FHIR XML resource instance data must validate against schemas and declared profiles. This round-tripping must not be dependent on any information other than the definition of FHIR resources and data types. (I.e. round-tripping must not be dependent on FHIR profiles, vocabulary definitions or other external information.)

2. FHIR Ontology Mappings

(MUST) We must define lossless bi-directional transformations from FHIR Profile instances (XML/JSON/RDF) to OWL/RDFS ontology representations and vice versa

3. Complete FHIR Coverage

(MUST) The RDF representation of FHIR resource instance data must be capable of expressing all legal FHIR instances that make use of any valid FHIR profiles, including extensions. An RDF instance data representation that is limited to only a subset of possible FHIR instances is not acceptable.

4. Monotonic with Modifier Exensions

(MUST) FHIR RDF data with modifier extensions must be "safe" for RDF reasoning, i.e., the semantics of the RDF must be monotonic even in the presence of modifier extensions.

5. Vocabulary Bindings

(MUST) The FHIR ontology must support vocabulary bindings to code, Coding and CodeableConcept - including dealing with extensible value sets and multi-code system value sets.

(SHOULD) The FHIR vocabulary representation should be able to leverage existing semantic web terminology representations (e.g. SNOMED-CT)

6. Enforce Constraints

(SHOULD) The FHIR ontology should enforce constraints that are representable in OWL/RDF whenever possible, e.g. schema constraints, regular expressions, etc.

7. Annotation Information

(SHOULD) In the RDFS/OWL Ontology representation, should expose at least minimal annotation information for display in an ontology editor for use by humans

8. User Friendly

RDF/OWL expressions should be (business, clinical) user friendly and understandable.
(This was felt to be unachievable.)

9. Datatype IRIs

(SHOULD) To support inference, datatypes (date, dateTime, value, etc.) should be represented as IRIs (xsd) rather than as string literals.

10. Articulate Value

Clearly articulate the value of the new RDF/RDFS/OWL representation over the current XML/JSON representation
(This will be a separate goal of the group, rather than a FHIR ontology requirement.)

11. Enable Inference

(MUST) The FHIR ontology must support inference on FHIR instance data, both in use cases based on the open world assumption and in use cases based on the closed world assumption.

12. Common Model

Create a common OWL/RDFS representation for information model elements and medical terminology concepts.
(This may be pursued as a separate project of the group.)

13. Valid Against Schemas and Profiles

(Merged into #1.)

14. RDF Quality

(MUST) Transformations into RDF must meet software quality checks including ontological closure. The RDF instance which is transformed from FHIR XML or FHIR JSON must be capable of being opened without further modification by widely available tools including Protégé and the RDF must meet quality checks including successful closure of graphs - all the links are understood by the tool.

15. Auto Generated

(MUST) The FHIR ontology and FHIR RDF instance data mappings should be auto-generatable from the FHIR specification.

16. Profiles from OWL

(MAY) We may find a way to transform OWL/RDF ontologies into FHIR profiles.
(Subsumed by #2)

USE CASES

Real world use cases that require and demonstrate the value of an RDF/OWL representation - TBD

  • Identify (through extension profile properties) inheritance relationships to abstract concepts and properties that hold across resources. E.g. "All orders", "All interventions", "All medications"
  • Allow easy testing of subsumption relationships between profiles - "Profile A is a proper constraint on Profile B"
  • Allow validation of mappings between FHIR elements and RIM, v2 and other models to:
    • Ensure that mapped to elements and paths actually exist
    • Allow identification of overlapping or unclear semantics in FHIR (as well as poorly expressed/imprecise mappings)
  • Allow FHIR-based data to be linked to other RDF data and queried via technologies such as SPARQL
  • Provide a recommended syntax for persisting FHIR data as triple-stores, allowing reasoning capabilities to be exercised (e.g. subsumption testing of codes when querying)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements&oldid=167563"