search

w3c / hcls-fhir-rdf

Sketching out an RDF representation for FHIR
38 stars 15 forks source link

FHIR Ontology (fhir.ttl) naming convention clash #53

Closed hsolbrig closed 6 years ago

hsolbrig commented 7 years ago

There are several classes in the FHIR ontology (fhir.ttl) that have ambiguous names. As an example, DiagnosisComponent is the target of Encounter.diagnosis, EpisodeOfCare.diagnosis, Claim.diagnosis and ExplanationOfBenefit.diagnosis. (Despite some seeming similarity), all four of these reference different types. DiagnosisComponent ends up being the aggregate (intersection) of all of the target types.

Recommendation: the fhir.ttl generator should prefix the type onto the component name - we should have EncounterDiagnosisComponent, EpisodeOfCareDiagnosisComponent, etc.

Note: None of these names appear in the actual RDF -- this change will have no impact on the FHIR RDF specification itself

hsolbrig commented 7 years ago

Changes have been proposed -- instead of "DiagnosisComponent", code now exists to generate "EncounterDiagnosos", "ClaimDiagnosis", "ExplanationOfBenefitDiagnosis", etc. Have filed an issue with FHIR http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/fhir/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=13594&start=0 and am awaiting the outcome of a discussion on https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/ontology/subject/Hosting . Will commit changes if approved.

dbooth-boston commented 6 years ago

Grahame approved the change: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/ontology/subject/Hosting