This page is part of the FHIR Specification (v1.6.0: STU 3 Ballot 4). The current version which supercedes this version is 5.0.0. For a full list of available versions, see the Directory of published versions
This module describes the RDF representation for FHIR resources (FHIR/RDF) and related assets, including an OWL ontology for FHIR/RDF and a ShEx grammar to validate FHIR/RDF. These materials were created, and are maintained by, a collaboration between HL7 and W3C. Editor: David Booth
The purpose of defining an RDF representation of FHIR is not only to enable FHIR to be exchanged in an RDF format such as Turtle, it is also to ground the semantics of FHIR data in RDF, for use with ontologies and other RDF data. Since FHIR data is losslessly round-trippable between XML, JSON and RDF formats, any FHIR data can be used in conjunction with RDF. The semantics are the same regardless of source format.
Reasons for using RDF and ontologies with FHIR data include:
FHIR/RDF was designed to correspond very closely to FHIR/XML and FHIR/JSON in its look and feel, though there are some apparent differences that are necessary to ensure full-fidelity round tripping between all FHIR formats, or to accommodate FHIR's extensibility. For example, fhir:index is used to retain information about ordering within a FHIR list, and fhir:value is used to indicate the value of an element, while still allowing FHIR extensions to be attached.
Ontologies that were designed independently almost always have some impedance mismatch when attempting to use them together, and the FHIR ontology is no exception. Many of the ontologies in the medical and life sciences domain are designed to capture facts about the world for research, such as the fact that the mitral valve is a kind of heart valve. But FHIR was designed to support the day-to-day operations of healthcare providers exchanging electronic health records (EHRs), and in this context the orientation has historically been different. When using FHIR/RDF with other ontologies this difference is likely to show up in two main ways:
For both of these reasons, to maintain monotonicity in RDF, FHIR/RDF should not be directly interpreted as stating facts, at least until any potentially non-monotonic elements have been removed or isolated. This could be done with a pre-processing step.
FHIR/RDF examples are provided for all FHIR resources in Turtle and JSON-LD formats.
The mime type for the Turtle format is text/turtle
.
TODO: What is the status of the JSON-LD examples?
Link to key content pages in this module:
TODO: In this section: description of key security and privacy issues, or references to pages that deal with this. For the security / privcay module itself, this section does not exist. For other modules, the paragraph/section can end with this boilerplate: For more general considerations, see the Security and Privacy module.
See also HL7 Security and Privacy Ontology
In this section: common problems in the space of the module, ways to go about solving them, or references to additional problem based linkes
In this section: what the current overall state is, what work is in train, what the goals over the next 18 months or so are