Re: Two-step JSON-LD possibility for FHIR [was Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback]

> I don't think an @context can produce any implied triples oh? damn. no, but hang on, if the @context says what resourceType currently says, then surely that information makes it's way into RDF, and you don't need a triple for resource type. I'll illustrate what I'm proposing by taking a nice sh

Two-step JSON-LD possibility for FHIR [was Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback]

I had some conversation with Grahame today on the ITS call, and I think I got a clearer idea of what he was suggesting for JSON-LD, which I'll summarize (with some liberties). The basic idea is to allow two forms of JSON: brief and verbose. The brief form would basically be the same as the ex

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

Hi Marc, On 03/06/2015 05:52 PM, Marc Twagirumukiza wrote: 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)? We cou

JSON-LD possibilities [was Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback]

Hi Grahame, Catching up on this . . . On 03/06/2015 04:50 AM, Grahame Grieve wrote: [ . . . ] So resource.id is the tail of the @id attribute for the resource from json-ld. ResourceType is the same as @context, and if json-ld could infer structure deeply, all we'd have to d

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 3:27 PM To: Pat Hayes; Anthony Mallia Cc: David Booth; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; HL7 ITS Subject: RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback I agree. Thanks, Leo >-Original Message- >From: Pat Hayes [mailto:pha...@ihmc.us] >Sent: Sunday, March 08, 20

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

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

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

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:

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

27;t believe that this renaming > contradicts your intentions and I think it is important to get these concept > semantics nailed down early. > > Regards, > > > Tony Mallia > EDMOND SCIENTIFIC COMPANY (ESC) > > > > -Original Message- > From: David Booth [mai

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

> 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

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

Regards, Tony Mallia EDMOND SCIENTIFIC COMPANY (ESC) -Original Message- From: David Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org] Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 8:29 PM To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org Cc: HL7 ITS; w3c semweb HCLS Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback There are a few thing

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

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

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

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

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

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

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

t; http://hl7.org/fhir/vs/ which supports the valuesets >> >> >> >> There may be more in FHIR that I have not yet discovered and Lloyd will >> know what they are. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> &g

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS Subject: RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback 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

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

ads. Kind Regards, Marc Twagirumukiza. Sent via IBM Notes Traveler iPad Device Anthony Mallia --- RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback --- From:"Anthony Mallia" To:"Lloyd McKenzie" , "Jim McCusker" Cc:"Marc Twagirumukiza" , "David Booth" , "HL7

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

available locally it might be >>> retrieved and imported by the same mechanism – the URI of the Resource type >>> with “accept RDF” retrieves the Ontology for the Resource. >>> >>> >>> >>> Some thoughts to try to move this along. >>> >>

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

.org; w3c semweb HCLS Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback 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 th

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

by the same mechanism – the URI of the Resource type with >> “accept RDF” retrieves the Ontology for the Resource. >> >> >> >> Some thoughts to try to move this along. >> >> >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Lloyd McKen

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

t; > > > Some thoughts to try to move this along. > > > > Tony > > > > > > *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 10:10 AM > > *To:* Anthony Mallia > *Cc:* Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS; ow

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback 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 mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>>

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

l 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:* Mar

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

thoughts to try to move this along. Tony From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:10 AM To: Anthony Mallia Cc: Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback Well, the

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

> > > > > > *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 06, 2015 9:06 AM > > *To:* Anthony Mallia > *Cc:* Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org; > w3c semweb HCLS > *Subject:* Re: Proposed RDF FHIR synt

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback 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

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

06, 2015 8:46 AM > *To:* Marc Twagirumukiza > *Cc:* Anthony Mallia; David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c > semweb HCLS > > *Subject:* Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback > > > > The URIs are already defined. We use a base of /fhir/ for c

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

; HL7 ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback 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 conditionSeverit

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

> * Marc * > -- > Click on link to read important disclaimer: > http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer > > > > From:Anthony Mallia > To:Lloyd McKenzie > Cc:Marc Twagirumukiza/AXPZC/AGFA@AGFA, David Booth

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

avid Booth , HL7 ITS , "owner-...@lists.hl7.org" , w3c semweb HCLS Date: 05/03/2015 19:14 Subject: RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback Lloyd, I agree. The use of prefix is a presentation issue and does not change the behavior of reasoners etc. If a user wants to add pre

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback Hi Tony, I wouldn't treat structure definitions as distinct from any other. The "vs" namespace is just for FHIR-defined valuesets. There will be 10

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

nzie > Date: Thursday, March 5, 2015 11:22 AM > To: Anthony Mallia > Cc: Marc Twagirumukiza , David Booth < > da...@dbooth.org>, HL7 ITS , "owner-...@lists.hl7.org" > , w3c semweb HCLS > Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback > Resent-From: >

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

rumukiza [mailto:marc.twagirumuk...@agfa.com<mailto:marc.twagirumuk...@agfa.com>] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 3:42 AM To: Lloyd McKenzie Cc: David Booth; HL7 ITS; owner-...@lists.hl7.org<mailto:owner-...@lists.hl7.org>; w3c semweb HCLS Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax fe

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

; T +32 3444 8188 | M +32 499 713 300 > > http://www.agfahealthcare.com > http://blog.agfahealthcare.com > -- > > Click on link to read important disclaimer: > http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer > > > > From:Ll

RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

-...@lists.hl7.org; w3c semweb HCLS Subject: Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback I fully support having a single "fhir" prefix. This will help at 'FHIR ontology' development level with making reusable predicates. Also at instance level it would help to include something that i

Re: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

David Booth Cc: w3c semweb HCLS , HL7 ITS Date: 04/03/2015 19:33 Subject: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback Sent by:owner-...@lists.hl7.org Several comments: 1. I'm not clear on the benefit of defining prefixes for every resource and type. The alternative is

Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

Several comments: 1. I'm not clear on the benefit of defining prefixes for every resource and type. The alternative is a single "fhir" prefix 2. We need to include something in the instances that identifies order for array elements 3. Do we need to declare type everywhere? Quite often, the type c