Re: FHIR RDF ordered list preferences?

Lists aren't that bad anymore in SPARQL, now that property paths are
available: http://www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2014/04/rdf-lists-and-sparql.html

Jim

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:25 PM David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> In defining the RDF representation of FHIR data, we need to maintain
> element ordering in some cases, both because ordering can be
> semantically relevant (such as listing someone's preferred mailing
> address first in a list of addresses), and to support round-tripping of
> FHIR RDF data back to FHIR XML.  Because native rdf:Lists are difficult
> to query in SPARQL, we have talked about using some other list
> representation.  To inform our decision we would like to get input on
> people's preferences.  Here are the options we are considering:
>
>   Ordered List Ontology (OLO)
> http://smiy.sourceforge.net/olo/spec/orderedlistontology.html
>
>   Collections Ontology (CO)
> http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/owlapi/http://purl.org/co/
>
>   Simple List Conventions (SLC)
> http://goo.gl/8PNuAG
>
> To see how these three compare, the Simple List Conventions document at
> http://goo.gl/8PNuAG includes comparisons with OLO and CO, and an
> explanation of the difficulty of using native rdf:Lists in SPARQL.
>
> Please indicate your opinion here:
> http://goo.gl/forms/zXn2b4ueoM
>
> Thanks!
> David Booth
>
>