On 03/06/2015 02:15 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
Where we'll have a particular challenge is where the RDF and OWL
representations can both be expressed using the same sytnax. It may be
that the solution there is to return both the instance and class
information. Is there a distinct mime-type for JSON-LD from regular JSON?
Yes: application/ld+json
http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#iana-considerations
However, I think there may be some confusion about the significance of
the MIME type or the RDF or OWL serialization format. Any standard RDF
serialization format (RDF/XML, Turtle, N-Triples, JSON-LD, etc.) can
hold triples that use any mixture of RDF, RDFS and/or OWL terms. All
are a form of RDF data. And the data might represent an ontology,
instance data or a combination of both. The serialization format (or
MIME type) is completely independent of the role that the RDF content
plays (such as representing an OWL ontology, or representing patient
instance data).
In general, URIs defined in the hl7.org URI space will be for
*ontologies* -- not instance data -- and those ontologies will use a
mixture of OWL, RDFS and plain RDF terms. URIs for instance data will
be created by the various parties that will be exchanging patient data.
Various healthcare providers *will* be creating URIs for their own
profiles (or ontologies) also, but I do not yet see any reason why
either HL7 or a healthcare provider would need to use the same URI for
both a term in an ontology *and* an item in some instance data. If
someone has an example of where they think that might happen, it would
be helpful to post it.
Thanks,
David Booth
