Hi Tony, Thanks sharing this new version. I was wondering if we should always add datatypes. f.eg on page 26-27-28:
.coding [ fhir:Coding.system [fhir:value “http://example.org/local” ^^xsd:string ] ; fhir:Coding.code [fhir:value "admin"^^xsd:string ] ; fhir:Coding.display [fhir:value "Admin"^^xsd:string ] ; ]; If we do that in all places we will be compliant with the fixed requirements : http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#9._Datatype_IRIs Kind Regards, Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research http://www.agfahealthcare.com http://blog.agfahealthcare.com Click on link to read important disclaimer: http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer From: Anthony Mallia <amal...@edmondsci.com> To: "i...@lists.hl7.org" <i...@lists.hl7.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org> Date: 19/05/2015 02:45 Subject: New side by side FHIR RDF comparison I have posted the new version http://wiki.hl7.org/images/2/25/FHIR_RDF_Sample_side_by_side_comparisons.pdf To see all the current stored versions you can go to http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:FHIR_RDF_Sample_side_by_side_comparisons.pdf This next version shows terminology binding in a fusion between the approaches of Grahame and Lloyd. It brings the singleton instance of the Terminology class right into Coding/code and it solves the blank node problem there. There is also some change to the fhir:Reference approach to simplify it and some initial work on Profile showing ValueSet constraints. Tony Mallia EDMOND SCIENTIFIC COMPANY (ESC)