hi David
I think my comment may have created more concern than is warranted. RDF
> does have named graphs, which we could use to delineate a certain set of
> triples. But we haven't been doing that for FHIR RDF and I don't think it
> is needed either. In practice, the FHIR resource that you get
Comment below . . .
On 02/17/2016 03:32 AM, Grahame Grieve wrote:
well, that's one part of it. I suppose you also want to comment on the
other media types we use:
* XML: |application/xml+fhir|
* JSON: |application/json+fhir|
But actually, whether you have to look inside or not is just one
(We are sorry for previous partial posting)
*
TSD 2016 - FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS
*
Nineteenth International Conference on TEXT, SPEECH and DIALOGUE
*
TSD 2016 - FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS
*
Nineteenth International Conference on TEXT, SPEECH and DIALOGUE (TSD 2016)
Brno, Czech Republic
well, that's one part of it. I suppose you also want to comment on the
other media types we use:
- XML: application/xml+fhir
- JSON: application/json+fhir
But actually, whether you have to look inside or not is just one question.
And, in a sense, it's just an efficiency question; it just
What we're wrestling here is of course the usual tension between the
cost of deploying a new identifier that won't initially be recognized
vs. the cost of reusing an existing, less specific identifier. For
media types, this is a ameliorated a bit by self-describing documents,
but as Grahame, points
