1. CIMI / FHIR and Shape Expressions

5. Local DB … …

6. Preferred Strategy – Full Interoperability Local databases, CDA, HL7 V.2, etc. Term and Structure Translators Application Standard Structure AND Standard Terms (As defined by CIMI Models) Application and User Requirements

7. Addressing Instances Semantics – A combination of identifiers and structure – Have to determine whether two columns / elements / attributes / classes / … reference the same thing – (Potentially) have to split or join multiple elements to achieve the same level of granularity (e.g. by microparsing or exploiting contextual information) – Have to recognize and make explicit tacit information (units / data referent / workflow state / …)

8. Addressing Instances Syntax – With the exception of granularity/compositional issues, should be orthogonal to semantics – As such, it would be really handy to arrive at a representational form (syntax) that: Is readily transformed to and from multiple “native” syntaxes That has minimal restrictions on what can be said in the syntax

9. Proposal RDF is close to ideal for a “neutral” syntax – Triples provide minimal (absolute minimum?) restrictions on semantic aspects – Semantic identifiers have single form (URI) – Links to ontologies and terminologies provide key need for mapping – Tools exist today (any23, …) for mapping any syntax to RDF and visa-versa.

10. What is Missing? Schema XML Schema Java Class / Interface (… under construction …) DDL UML OWL ( ? ) Instance XML Java Object JSON SQL Tables (XMI -- …?) ( --- not really a schema ---) RDF

11. RDF Data Shapes Define a schema for RDF RDF – a set of triples. Constraints: – Subject must be IRI or Blank Node – Predicate must be a IRI – Object must be a IRI, a Blank Node or a Literal Any set of triples that meets the constraints above is valid – Even basic structures like lists, reification, etc. are not constraints…

12. RDF Data Shapes Constraints on a set of triples: – Triples that MUST exist – Triples that MAY NOT exist – Triple references – Object values – … A Schema language for RDF

13. Data Shape Example start = # Issue validation starts with { # An has: ex:state (ex:unassigned ex:assigned), # ex:state predicate with a target of either # ex:unassigned or ex:assigned ex:reportedBy @, # ex:peportedBy predicate whose target matches # ex:reportedOn xsd:dateTime, # ex:reportedOn predicate whose object is # a valid xsd:dateTime ( # optionally ex:reproducedBy @, # a ex:reproducedBy predicate w/ # Target URI that references vaid UserShape ex:reproducedOn xsd:dateTime # and a ex:reproducedOn predicate w/ date time )?, ex:related @ * # 0 or more ex:related predicates whose objects # are the subject of a valid issue shape } <UserShape { … }

14. RDF Data Shapes Previous example is in a specific grammar (ShEx) – W3C is working on other representational forms under “SHACL” rubric RDF Data Shapes do not specify semantics (!!)

15. This is a valid “Issue” shape … ex:state ex:unassigned ; ex:reportedBy ; ex:reportedOn "2013-01- 23T10:18:00"^^xsd:dateTime. foaf:name "Bob" ; foaf:mbox.

16. … but so is this foaf:firstName ex:state ex:unassigned ; ex:reportedBy ex:cornflakes; ex:reportedOn "2013-01- 23T10:18:00"^^xsd:dateTime. ex:cornflakes foaf:name ”Kellog’s Corn Flakes" ; foaf:mbox.

17. Why RDF Data Shapes? Tools exist (or soon will) to transform XML Schema, UML Models, FHIR models, CIMI models, SQL DDL, … into ShEx – XML Schema  ShEx – XML  RDF – … RDF can be validated / queried using ShEx

18. Why ShEx? ShEx is based on parser semantics – Essentially a grammar with a fixed RDF Lexer – ShEx includes the notion of “semantic annotations” (!!!) ShEx can be used as: – A validation tool … “Are these triples a valid instance of X” – A query tool … “Find all subjects whose triples are valid instances of X” – A transformation tool (!) … “Every time you see a valid instance of X, emit the triple “(subj) rdf:type ex: X”

19. ShEx as a transformation tool Shape expression serves the role of a digital “ribosome”, crawling sets of related triples – Can be used to copy and modify RDF – Can emit other languages (XML, TSV, …) – Can generate code – Can create forms – …

20. Transformation Model Source Schema In ShEx Target Schema In Shex Source Instance Any23 transform RDF “Native” Common Model Common Model

21. ShEx Example http://shexspec.github.io/extensions/Map/

22. DNA Translation

23. Data Translation Any23 transform Visitor / Listeners ShEx Process Data Synthesis Generated Data/Code RDF Triples

24. Current Projects FHIR   RDF FHIR Schema  ShEx UML  ShEx AML / ADL  ShEx

25. ShEx Processors JavaScript Implementation – JISON Haskell Implementation Scala Implemention Python Implementation – (ANTLR)

26. Additional Work W3C SHACL Group – RDF Representation – ShEx compatible (?) – Currently spearheaded by Holger Knoblauch (TopQuadrant) w/ SPIN focus ShEx Group – Face to Face in Lille August 17-21

27. Links any23: “Anything to triples” https://any23.apache.org/https://any23.apache.org/ http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/FancyShExDemo — demo (not examples bar hidden on LHS) http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/FancyShExDemo http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/ShEx3/bnf?lang=perl — BNF for ShEx http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/ShEx3/bnf?lang=perl https://github.com/shexSpec/grammar/blob/master/shExDoc.g4 — ANTLR for ShEx https://github.com/shexSpec/grammar/blob/master/shExDoc.g4 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page — SHACL working group https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/Primer — intro http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/Primer https://github.com/shexSpec — general repository https://github.com/shexSpec