W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > May 2015

Re: FHIR RDF ordered list preferences?

From: Jim McCusker <mccusker@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 20:27:21 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=Qh-p9mL=tRs6JAP_Ob-YqOn478S7Wd2ivjzHr9ptUtPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.hl7.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
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
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 20:27:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 16 May 2015 00:34:44 UTC