I think it's clear that mime type won't be sufficient to allow a client to
differentiate whether they want the "instance" of a FHIR resource or the
"ontology" for a FHIR resource. So we're going to need a convention where
the ontology is available from a different endpoint than the instance.
Graha
On 03/06/2015 02:15 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
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 J
There are a few things going on here that I think are causing some
confusion. One is discussion of RDF serializations (syntax). Another
is discussion of ontologies (i.e., data models or TBox) versus instance
data (i.e., ABox, or data that is expressed in terms of those data
models or ontologi
I'm not sure that I undestand this discussion. Every Fhir structure
defintion and value set (and other definitional resource) already has an
IRI.- it's an inherent part of the design. So the IRI for the structural
definition of patient is http://hl7.org/FHIR/StructureDefinition/Patient.
All valuese
Marc,
You are absolutely right that we need to organize the topics. I had created a
set of topics for mapping at
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_RDF_Mapping and the topic “Modeling
language and Serialization syntax” now has its own page where I have copied the
discussion and also linked
