Thanks Dan, we should be up and running at UMN now; I ran a few queries to verify we were returning results. Out of curiosity, is there any reason we aren't using the PCORnet ontology directly in shrine instead of the shrine ontology + adapter mappings?
Regards, Andrew On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Dan Connolly <dconno...@kumc.edu> wrote: > Yes, that's how it works. #411 > <https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/411> should have > details. > > > -- > Dan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Gpc-dev [gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu] on behalf of Andrew > Hangsleben [hangs...@umn.edu] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2017 10:43 AM > *To:* GPC-DEV@LISTSERV.KUMC.EDU > *Subject:* SNOW Shrine Ontology > > Hi Everyone, > We are working on getting our ontology and mappings configured here at > UMN. I was hoping someone could help me understand which ontologies we are > using for the SNOW network. My current understanding is that sites are > using the PCORnet/SCIHLS locally, but we are using the shrine ontology for > the network. If this is the case, couldn't we just use the SCIHLS ontology > for the shrine network as well? > > Regards, > Andrew Hangsleben > > -- > Andrew Hangsleben > Developer/Analyst > Academic Health Center - Information Systems > <http://hub.ahc.umn.edu/ahc-information-systems> > University of Minnesota > Phone: (612) 625-1285 > Email: hangs...@umn.edu > -- Andrew Hangsleben Developer/Analyst Academic Health Center - Information Systems <http://hub.ahc.umn.edu/ahc-information-systems> University of Minnesota Phone: (612) 625-1285 Email: hangs...@umn.edu
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
