RE: question about medical code

Kevin's got it. I would like to imagine schema:ConceptScheme (or
something similar) instead of rdfs:Resource as the range for this
property, but that's merely a detail.

Coining proper Linked Data (hash) URIs matched up to some RDFa should be
very easy if they have access to the HTML production.

Once again, remember that Schema.org is automatically forgiving when
people put strings where things are expected. That's true across the
board. It shouldn't be necessary to think this property is any
different.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Ford [mailto:kefo@3windmills.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 7:29 PM
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: question about medical code
> 
> Dear Karen,
> 
> Jeff was referring to the codingSystem property at [1], not the code
> itself.  (Richard proposed an alternate name for the property -
> inStandard - in an above example.)
> 
> Both examples, however, represent the scheme to which the identifier
> conforms as simple strings.  Jeff, I believe, would prefer if the
> scheme to which the identifier conforms were referenced by URI.  As
in:
> 
> <http://bowker.com/identifiers/isbn/9780553479430>
>      a schema:Identifier;
>      schema:name "9780553479430";
>      schema:inStandard <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/identifiers/isbn>
> .
> 
> Now, it might be that a string value *or* URI would be perfectly
> acceptable for the property schema:inStandard, but what I really
wanted
> to comment on is slightly tangential because it involves the choices
in
> modelling before you/us.
> 
> schema:inStandard rdfs:range xsd:string
> 
> is a popular and easy thing to do because it allows anyone to plug in
> their value.  However
> 
> schema:inStandard rdfs:range rdf:Resource
> 
> can lead to more information and better control.
> 
> The former is easy for anyone to understand and produce, because they
> simply need to enter some text.  The latter, however, would require
> someone with a "special" identifier (i.e. an identifier type that has
> not been given its own URI) needing to mint a URI.
> 
> That's not that hard for us to do or necessarily understand, but I
find
> that this is one of those recurring issues with respect to Linked
Data.
>   People have something custom, there's no URI, and he doesn't know
> what to do next.
> 
> I don't have a real solution to offer (unless we permit a string OR
> rdf:Resource as the range of the inStandard/codingScheme property, and
> we encourage the use of the latter) but I didn't want to miss the
> opportunity to note that this is one of those issues that will recur
> and, however it pans out, requires some form of education.
> 
> Yours,
> Kevin
> 
> [1]
>
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Identifier#Adopting_approa
> ch_from_medical.2Fhealth_extension
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/25/2013 07:04 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > Jeff, I believe that the issue is that the codes *are* strings, and
> > that's why they need this two-part description. If they were things
> we
> > wouldn't be having this conversation.
> >
> > kc
> >
> > On 1/25/13 12:29 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> >> I think they should model values for codingScheme as things rather
> than
> >> as strings. That would be the SKOS way. They already have a
> forgiveness
> >> clause for numbing things down to strings, but it's harder to row
in
> the
> >> opposite direction.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> >>> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:13 PM
> >>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> >>> Subject: question about medical code
> >>>
> >>> 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 Saturday, 26 January 2013 01:04:04 UTC