On Dec 11, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Vladimir Mironov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not quite sure that any of the constituents of a triple is a member of
> the data set (the triple certainly is).
Neither the triples nor their components are *members* of the dataset. They
might be in some sense 'part of' o
Hi,
I'm not quite sure that any of the constituents of a triple is a member of
the data set (the triple certainly is).
Let me give a parable. "Mick Jagger is part of the Rolling Stones. Mick's
thumb is part of Mick Jagger." Is Mick's thumb part of the Rolling Stones?
Cheers
On 9 December 2014 at
Hi Vipul,
To me, your first two points go together. The only reason to do an RDF
representation is to support implementations that want to make use of
semantic web technologies for inference purposes.
I wouldn't describe either as requirements for the syntax though. A
requirement would be a par
On yesterday's teleconference Claude Nanjo reviewed the FHIR ontology
approach that he developed:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10QQaOTuLxwqdPVW4sWncSiSRNhqNrpn3RAbdmPmrihs/edit#slide=id.p4
.
One of the main discussion points was about how to model FHIR's
modifying extensions, which hav
The property "hasPart" for schema:Dataset [1] doesn't have the problem with
disjoint type, as long as you consider a protein a "CreativeWork".
Anders Riutta
[1] http://schema.org/Dataset
- Original Message -
> From: snachimu...@mmm.com
> To: "Vladimir Mironov"
> Cc: "Michel Dumontier"
Good list, Lloyd. Would like to suggest some more additions (apologies if these
have already been suggested).
· Clearly articulate the value of the new RDF/RDFS/OWL representation
over the current XML/JSON representation
· Enablement of OWL/RDFS inference – so we could identi
We use "has member" to relate arbitrary groups and their members. Our
implementation is for binary relationships in a relational database, and
so this should work for RDF too.
Senthil.
Senthil K. Nachimuthu, MD, PhD | Medical Informaticist
3M Health Information Systems, Inc.
575 W Murray Blvd,
Question - are we talking about a structual ontology (analogous to various
structural codesystems/tables like ActStatus or Acknowledgment in v2/v3),
or a domain ontology such as Administrative Sex or one derived from
domain-specific codesystems such as RxNorm/LOINC/SNOMED CT?
If it's a structur
