- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:43:55 -0400
- To: Josh Mandel <Joshua.Mandel@childrens.harvard.edu>
- CC: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Hi Josh, On 03/17/2015 01:11 PM, Josh Mandel wrote: > [ . . . ] > I think it would be a mistake to map both > <http://hl7-fhir.github.io/observation-definitions.html#Observation.code> and > <http://hl7-fhir.github.io/datatypes-definitions.html#Coding.code> to > "fhir:code". I didn't call out that issue in my slides http://dbooth.org/2015/fhir/json-ld/fhir-in-json-ld.pdf but we did discuss it a little on the teleconference. My thinking is that it is definitely not ideal, and it is one of the glitches that differentiates what we called the "direct RDF" versus our "ideal RDF". But the reason this did not seem to me to be a complete show-stopper is that the fhir:code property could be viewed as a super-property that has different meanings in different contexts of use. This is often done in RDF anyway, though admittedly it is normally done in cases where the grouping of properties into a single super-property is semantically sensible, rather than just being a result of the property having the same spelling. An example that EricP gave is that a foaf:name can be applied either to a person or an organization, and those are arguably semantically different uses. We wouldn't say that Acme Corporation has a family name and a given name, as we would for a person. In short, this is definitely an issue to consider when deciding whether this approach is acceptable. Thanks, David Booth
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:44:23 UTC