Forwarding again with line numbers
1. -------- Forwarded Message --------
2. Subject: RE: ACTION: Tony to try using fhir:code and
fhir:coding.code in
3. the ontology
4. Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:56:25 +0000
5. From: Anthony Mallia <amal...@edmondsci.com>
6. To: David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>
7.
8. David,
9.
10. I have the ontology working and it does not require the distinction
11. between fhir:code and fhir:Coding.code so we can stick to fhir:code
12.
13. Repeated the problem that Lloyd identified of upward propagation
of the
14. type to the actual entity e.g. AllergyIntolerance
15.
16. Here is the general class axiom in the internal terminology bridge
which
17. enables inference of the type on the AllergyIntolerance.status code
18.
19. [ rdf:type owl:Class ;
20. rdfs:subClassOf
21. <http://hl7.org/fhir/bridge/allergy-intolerance-status#confirmed> ;
22. owl:intersectionOf ( fhirvs:allergy-intolerance-status
23. [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
24. owl:onProperty fhir:value ;
25. owl:hasValue "confirmed"
26. ]
27. )
28. ] .
29.
30. If the code is in the Valueset fhirvs:allergy-intolerance-status
and has
31. a value "confirmed"
32. then it is of Concept type allergy-intolerance-status#confirmed.
33.
34. The way the reasoner finds that it is in the value set is from the
35. object property range:
36.
37. @prefix fhirvs: <http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/> .
38. fhir:AllergyIntolerance.status rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;
39. fhir:binding.valueSetReference
40.
"http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/allergy-intolerance-status"^^xsd:anyURI ;
41. fhir:isModifier "true"^^xsd:boolean ;
42. fhir:isSummary "true"^^xsd:boolean ;
43. rdfs:comment "Decision support would
44. typically raise alerts for 'Unconfirmed', 'Confirmed', and 'Resolved'
45. and ignore a 'Refuted' reaction. In particular, 'Refuted' may be
useful
46. for reconciliation of the Adverse Reaction List. Some
implementations
47. may choose to make this field mandatory." ;
48. fhir:short "active | unconfirmed |
49. confirmed | inactive | resolved | refuted | entered-in-error" ;
50. fhir:binding.description "Assertion
51. about certainty associated with a propensity, or potential risk, of a
52. reaction to the identified Substance." ;
53. fhir:concept_definition "Assertion
about
54. certainty associated with the propensity, or potential risk, of a
55. reaction to the identified Substance." ;
56. fhir:binding.strength "required" ;
57. rdfs:domain fhir:AllergyIntolerance ;
58. rdfs:range fhir:code ,
59. fhirvs:allergy-intolerance-status .
60.
61. This is asserted because the binding strength is "required"
62.
63. The AllergyIntolerance.substance is a CodeableConcept with contained
64. Codings which declares its Coding,system so there is no need to
go back
65. to the
66. ObjectProperty.
67.
68. The following declares that the CodeableConcept is of that type if it
69. has any Codings of that type:
70.
71. [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
72. rdfs:subClassOf <http://snomed.info/id/373297006> ;
73. owl:onProperty fhir:CodeableConcept.coding ;
74. owl:someValuesFrom <http://snomed.info/id/373297006>
75. ] .
76.
77. The following declares that Coding is of that Concept type if it has
78. snomed as the coding system and 373297006 as the code value"
79.
80. [ rdf:type owl:Class ;
81. rdfs:subClassOf <http://snomed.info/id/373297006> ;
82. owl:intersectionOf ( [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
83. owl:onProperty fhir:Coding.code ;
84. owl:allValuesFrom [ rdf:type
owl:Restriction ;
85. owl:onProperty
fhir:value ;
86. owl:hasValue "373297006"
87. ]
88. ]
89. [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
90. owl:onProperty fhir:Coding.system ;
91. owl:hasValue <http://snomed.info/sct>
92. ]
93. )
94. ] .
95.
96. Thus the SNOMED Bridge ontology can be built without knowing where
the
97. CodeableConcept is used.
98.
99. Tony
100.
101.
102.
103. -----Original Message-----
104. From: David Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org]
105. Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:17 AM
106. To: Anthony Mallia
107. Subject: ACTION: Tony to try using fhir:code and fhir:coding.code
in the
108. ontology
109.
110. Hi Tony,
111.
112. ACTION: Tony to try using fhir:code and fhir:coding.code in the
ontology
113. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/23-hcls-minutes.html#action01]
114.
115. Any progress on this? Do you think you'll have something to show
us on
116. tomorrow's call?
117.
118. thanks,
119. David
