This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "FHIR Ontology Requirements"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* This includes retaining information about order of repeating elements | * This includes retaining information about order of repeating elements | ||
: ''QUESTION: Is the order of repeating elements semantically significant in FHIR? I.e., would it affect or use of the interpretation of the information? If not, then why do you view this as important? (Playing devil's advocate here, to elicit the rationale.)'' | : ''QUESTION: Is the order of repeating elements semantically significant in FHIR? I.e., would it affect or use of the interpretation of the information? If not, then why do you view this as important? (Playing devil's advocate here, to elicit the rationale.)'' | ||
| + | :: ''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.) | * Needs to allow for extensions where-ever they can appear, including simple types (date, boolean, etc.) | ||
2. We want to be able to represent instances as RDF and Profiles as OWL/RDFS | 2. We want to be able to represent instances as RDF and Profiles as OWL/RDFS | ||
Revision as of 17:05, 9 December 2014
DRAFT
1. It must be possible to round-trip from XML/JSON through RDF representation
- This includes retaining information about order of repeating elements
- QUESTION: Is the order of repeating elements semantically significant in FHIR? I.e., would it affect or use of the interpretation of the information? If not, then why do you view this as important? (Playing devil's advocate here, to elicit the rationale.)
- 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. We want to be able to represent instances as RDF and Profiles as OWL/RDFS
3. Syntax needs to be "safe" when dealing with modifier extensions
4. Syntax should support vocabulary bindings to code, Coding and CodeableConcept - including dealing with extensible value sets and multi-code system value sets
5. Syntax should enforce constraints that are representable in RDF (i.e. schema constraints, regular expressions, etc.)
6. In the RDFS/OWL, should expose at least minimal annotation information for display
