- From: Mark <markw@illuminae.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:14:09 -0700
- To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>
- Cc: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>, "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> or > > :x :has-attribute > [ a :systolic-blood-pressure; :has-value 120; :has-unit unit:mPa ] > [ a :diastolic-blood-pressure; :has-value 80; :has-unit unit:mPa ] This is how we are modeling clinical data in the SADI project. We've now switched to using Michel's SIO ontology, but we had an identical (conceptually) model without "clinical relations ontology" that we developed for the hospital sevearal years ago. It works really well for us!! > In contrast, the specialized predicate means that for every value in a > test panel would require a predicate between the individual and the test > value, and then a predicate for each of the components of a test value. Exactly... and there's more "richness" in modeling at the Class level than the predicate level anyway. IMO it's "the right thing to do", though it does make SPARQL queries a bit more verbose (but hopefully no human is ever going to be expected to compose SPARQL by hand anyway,so that's neither here nor there to me) M
Received on Sunday, 12 September 2010 17:15:03 UTC