Hi David,
Sorry to jump again into this discussion.
Is it possible to put such discussion in a kind of issue tracker/wiki/or something else? With 3 columns: the topic, the discussion thread, and the conclusion (where possible)?
The purpose would be to keep all arguments in classified way accordin
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?
*Lloyd McKenzie*Cons
Lloyd,
RDF, RDFS and OWL can all be expressed in RDF/XML. I am using it all the time
out of Protégé.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 2:17 PM
To: Jim McCusker
Cc: Anthony Mallia; Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS;
owner-...@lists.hl7.or
Both OWL and RDFS are abstract models with no particular serialization.
Ontologies are usually serialized as RDF/XML (that's what's in a .owl file,
usually), but can just as easily be serialized to JSON-LD, Turtle, OWL
Abstract Syntax, Manchester Notation, or many others. Generally, RDF/XML
and Tur
XML, JSON, RDF or OWL, I expect, but yes based on the http accept header.
The OWL representation would only exist for resources that are
infrastructure (StructureDefinition, ValueSet, ConceptMap, etc.) This
might be one reason to push us towards OWL rather than RDFS, as I'm not
sure whether RDFS h
It turns out that too many of us cannot make it at that time so we're
cancelling and aiming for Monday at 18:00 CET. Note that, due to the
start of daylight savings time in the U.S., the equivalent time is
10AM PST 1PM EST.
The time difference confusion will continue until March 29 when Europe
sta
Jim,
Thanks for the clarification. I have not kicked the tires on punning.
Tony
From: Jim McCusker [mailto:mcc...@rpi.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:37 AM
To: Lloyd McKenzie; Anthony Mallia
Cc: Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c
semweb HCLS
Subject: Re:
Actually, the impact of punning on reasoners is minimal. There are a set of
OWL predicates that assume the resource is a class, everything else assumes
it is an individual.
Jim
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:11 AM Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
> Well, the situation we're in is that there is an official URL
Yes. A FHIR Resource instance will have a URL and the type that will be
returned is XML, JSON or RDF based on accept in the http (I assume).
From the RDF viewpoint it must always points to an RDF individual. That
individual can be within the loaded ontologies (as a cache) or closure is not
achi
hi all,
apologies, a conflict has come up. great work, all, on the note
cheers,
michael
Michael Miller
Software Engineer
Institute for Systems Biology
> -Original Message-
> From: M. Scott Marshall [mailto:mscottmarsh...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 6:49 AM
> To: HCLS
> S
Well, the situation we're in is that there is an official URL for each
resource and that's the only place you can be guaranteed to receive either
the instance (RDF) or type (OWL). And that will be true for both
HL7-defined artifacts as well as those defined by anyone else.
*Lloyd McKenzie*Consul
Correct time is: 9AM PST / 12PM EST / 6PM CET
-- Forwarded message --
From: M. Scott Marshall
Date: Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:49 PM
Subject: [LLD] W3C Note Dataset Descriptions telco today 9AM PST /
12PM EST / 6PM CET
To: HCLS
Hello All,
Just a reminder of our telco at 8AM PST / 1
Hello All,
Just a reminder of our telco at 8AM PST / 11AM ET / 5PM CET.
We are wrapping it up so this should be our last telco on the W3C Note
on Dataset Descriptions.
Relevant docs:
Working draft of W3C Note:
http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/joejimbo/HCLSDatasetDescriptions/blob
Lloyd – that is called a pun and is possible in that the same IRI for both an
individual and a class. The impact on reasoners may be complex.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 9:06 AM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 I
Hi Tony,
I thought it was possible to have both instance definitions and class
definitions at the same IRI?
*Lloyd McKenzie*Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.
E: lmcken...@gevityinc.com
M: +1 587-334-1110 <1-587-334-1110>
W: gevityinc.com
*GEVITY**Informatics
Lloyd,
I think the thread has mutated from the prefix discussion which seems to be
closed to the IRI discussion which needs a lot more thought.
In RDF the IRI points to the RDF individual or entity that is being referenced
not its FHIR structural definition. However the FHIR URIs should give us
The URIs are already defined. We use a base of /fhir/ for code systems
and /fhir/vs/ for value sets. And it's entirely possible to have both
reactionSeverity and conditionSeverity and numerous other orthogonal
severity value sets.
This discussion is purely about what prefixes we define f
Tony,
+1 to declare http://hl7.org/fhir/ as FHIR:
For IRI:
I would use "http://hl7.org/fhir/severity/"; rather than
http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/reactionSeverity
To disambiguate from a ValueSet to another will be done with the pattern
model.
Otherwise we may end up with multiple
http://hl7.org/f
18 matches
Mail list logo
