RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:54:21 -0800

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 according the topic but utmost to pick one or 2 conclusions points from each thread.
Just thinking loud.
F.eg.This is a nice informative discussion which can help the future "faq" and keeping one conclusion from it can prevent having the same discussion again.
This holds also for other threads.

Kind Regards,

Marc Twagirumukiza.

Sent via IBM Notes Traveler
iPad Device



Anthony Mallia --- RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback ---

From:"Anthony Mallia" <[email protected]>
To:"Lloyd McKenzie" <[email protected]>, "Jim McCusker" <[email protected]>
Cc:"Marc Twagirumukiza" <[email protected]>, "David Booth" <[email protected]>, "HL7 ITS" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "w3c semweb HCLS" <[email protected]>
Date:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:20
Subject:RE: Proposed RDF FHIR syntax feedback

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:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 2:17 PM
To: Jim McCusker
Cc: Anthony Mallia; Marc Twagirumukiza; David Booth; HL7 ITS; [email protected]; 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 there a distinct mime-type for JSON-LD from regular JSON?


Lloyd McKenzie
Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: -Your data has been truncated.

Reply via email to