Hi Tony,
Thanks sharing this new version. I was wondering if we should always add
datatypes.
f.eg on page 26-27-28:
.coding [
fhir:Coding.system [fhir:value “http://example.org/local”
^^xsd:string ] ;
fhir:Coding.code [fhir:value "admin"^^xsd:string ] ;
fhir:Coding.display [fhir:value "Admin"^^xsd:string ] ;
];
If we do that in all places we will be compliant with the fixed
requirements :
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#9._Datatype_IRIs
Kind Regards,
Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare
Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
http://www.agfahealthcare.com
http://blog.agfahealthcare.com
Click on link to read important disclaimer:
http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer
From: Anthony Mallia <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, w3c semweb HCLS
<[email protected]>
Date: 19/05/2015 02:45
Subject: New side by side FHIR RDF comparison
I have posted the new version
http://wiki.hl7.org/images/2/25/FHIR_RDF_Sample_side_by_side_comparisons.pdf
To see all the current stored versions you can go to
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:FHIR_RDF_Sample_side_by_side_comparisons.pdf
This next version shows terminology binding in a fusion between the
approaches of Grahame and Lloyd.
It brings the singleton instance of the Terminology class right into
Coding/code and it solves the blank node problem there.
There is also some change to the fhir:Reference approach to simplify it
and some initial work on Profile showing ValueSet constraints.
Tony Mallia
EDMOND SCIENTIFIC COMPANY (ESC)
