Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements consensus & Common model work

On today's call we reached consensus on FHIR ontology requirements, though we did not yet formally approve them because the HL7 co-chair was unable to join the call: http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements Guoqian Jaing and Eric Prud'hommeaux also discussed work at Mayo o

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

Yes, Samson, that's a great reminder. I think that Lloyd may have stated that earlier - but I didn't repeat it, and it's pretty easy to overlook. Rob On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Samson Tu wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Robert Hausam wrote: > > Lloyd, that's certainly correct with

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

> On Feb 7, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Robert Hausam wrote: > > 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

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

Lloyd, I do agree that if there is an explicit declaration of the number of instances of "something", as with the subclass that you suggested, then the reasoning on minimum cardinality clearly works - and as long as that's done consistently it would be fine (although maybe cumbersome?). I was thin

Fwd: Linked Geospatial Data use cases

For anyone working with spatial data. Alasdair J G Gray http://www.alasdairjggray.co.uk http://orcid.org/-0002-5711-4872 On 9 Feb 2015, at 22:17, Phil Archer mailto:ph...@w3.org>> wrote: Dear all, As I hope you'll have s