Yes, this does not make sense to me.
Thanks,
Leo
From: Samson Tu [mailto:s...@stanford.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 2:09 PM
To: Anthony Mallia
Cc: Samson Tu; David Booth; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
On Mar 8, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Anthon
I agree.
Thanks,
Leo
>-Original Message-
>From: Pat Hayes [mailto:pha...@ihmc.us]
>Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 2:31 PM
>To: Anthony Mallia
>Cc: David Booth; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; HL7 ITS
>Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback
>
>Comments in-line:
>
>On Mar 8, 2015, at 9:
Comments in-line:
On Mar 8, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Anthony Mallia wrote:
> David,
>
> I believe that this is an important aspect to distinguish between the type or
> TBox and the instance or ABox. A simple justification is that they come from
> different authorities (and end points) - HL7 or an EH
> On Mar 8, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Anthony Mallia wrote:
>
> So I am recommending two subtypes of Ontology :
> INSTANCE ONTOLOGY (INSTANCE for short) contains Individuals, their Property
> assertions and their data values but may refer to contents of MODEL(s)
> MODEL ONTOLOGY (MODEL for short) conta
David,
I believe that this is an important aspect to distinguish between the type or
TBox and the instance or ABox. A simple justification is that they come from
different authorities (and end points) - HL7 or an EHR system.
However I would strongly recommend that we DO NOT REDEFINE Ontology f
