Okay, I've added another option:
[[
Option F: '''(MUST)''' The FHIR ontology must support inference, both in
use cases based on the open world assumption and in use cases based on
the closed world assumption.
]]
David
On 02/09/2015 02:44 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
Well, interoperability is de
Well, interoperability is defined by the base specification, not by any
particular technology representation (schema, schematron, OWL, etc.) What
really matters for interoperability is the RDF format, not the OWL. We
have two use-cases for the OWL representation - instance validation and
reasonin
David,
I believe this question brings into play the definition of interoperability.
With current technology it seems that we can get interoperability only with a
closed world assumption. It all depends on the definition of interoperability
(which has not been formally defined) but the expectatio
I have listed the proposed wordings for requirement #11 that I have seen
so far:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#11._Enable_Inference
[[
#11. Enable Inference
Option A: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference.
Option B: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must
I have posted a document on the HL7 Wiki discussing FHIR Datatypes to OWL
mapping - in particular the treatment of primitive types.
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:FHIR_Datatypes_OWL_Mapping.pdf
There is also a link to the document from the FHIR RDF Mapping page
http://wiki.hl7.org/inde
Lloyd, that's certainly correct with the "upper bound", given the
conditions that you describe. If an instance has 5 of "something" when
it's declared that it should have 4, then the reasoner can clearly
determine that the instance is invalid. However, using OWA, you can't do
this for the "lower
Tony, Pellet 2.2.0 is available for Protege 5.0.0-beta-15 (I just
checked). I'm not sure what's happened or will be happening (if anything)
with Pellet 3, as I don't see a further reference to it anywhere on their
Web site (and I hadn't been checking on it for a while). As I recall, the
Pellet IC
I believe Lloyd is onto something critical.
I view this approach as the critical bridge between traditional highly
specified ontologies and schemas to more open metadata-based self-defining
schemas in the world of big data. I believe further that Darwinian forces
will select those highly speci
