> On 26 May 2016, at 17:42, Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumuk...@agfa.com> > wrote: > > However it's the responsibility of every one to make its data public or not. > This doesn't prevent us to provide a way of expressing data (for those who > want to do so) with FHIR standard using schema.org <http://schema.org/>
I think the onus is on the spec development side to show how privacy issues are addressed (mitigated). Hence, using “Privacy-By-Design” principles [1] (for example). The current FHIR core spec uses a secure protocol for exchange of data (ie good design) for XML/JSON. But if we then say - here is how you encode FHIR data in public web pages and publish schema.org URIs - then we must be able to specifically address these privacy concerns. (I imagine a lot of Privacy Advocacy groups would be interested if they saw that.) > Just for your example, we are already expressing our internal healthcare data > (and EHR data) using schema.org <http://schema.org/> (although they are not > public). > This has a benefit when we need to share such data with another APIs and > there HL7 FHIR comes in as a standard. Does that mean you are encoding FHIR Data using RDFa/Microdata? (and using schema.org URIs for all the FHIR concepts?) Cheers - Renato [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-app-privacy-bp-20120703/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-app-privacy-bp-20120703/>
