W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > March 2015

Re: [FHIR JSON-LD] Different mappings for different nestings?

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:43:55 -0400
Message-ID: <550875EB.9030001@dbooth.org>
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
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.

David Booth
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 18:44:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:44 UTC