- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:13:10 -0800
- To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Adrian has added the medical code to the Identifier page [1]. It looks to me like in its simplest form it could also be used for the minimalist approach to identifiers that I have proposed [2]. Essentially, it only needs two properties: codeValue Text The actual code. codingSystem Text The coding system, e.g. 'ICD-10'. Of course, they have to be grouped as a single unit, which the medical code page calls "code": code MedicalCode A medical code for the entity, taken from a controlled vocabulary or ontology such as ICD-9, DiseasesDB, MeSH, SNOMED-CT, RxNorm, etc. I must admit that I find the properties here to be a bit circular but I'm going to assume that greater minds than mind have investigated this and determined that it works. I could add an example on my simplified identifier page, and/or could add a simplified example after Adrian's. Does that make sense? I have one worry about using "code" however: I think that we, too, will have codes that need to be described in this way. Will there need to be a difference between codes of this type and identifiers? It seems to me that folks are often using "identifier" to me an identifier for the focus of the description, whereas "code" could be, for example, a description element like "audience level" or "government document type." In practical usage, will we need both? kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 20:13:42 UTC