- From: RebholzSchuhmann <d.rebholz.schuhmann@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:58:42 +0000
- To: Joanne Luciano <jluciano@gmail.com>
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>, Conor Dowling <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>, Rafael Richards <rmrich5@gmail.com>
Hi,
don't know how someone reads this, who does not know all these benefits
anyways. Reads as if you are selling RDF to somebody who knows half-way
the benefits of RDF.
It would have made sense to be more precise on the privacy and security
issues. Neither RDF nor XML have been developed to address privacy /
security, and either one is highly important in healthcare systems. Do
you have even stronger arguments for privacy and security issues?
Hope this helps.
-drs-
On 15/01/2013 12:41, Joanne Luciano wrote:
> Thanks for doing this.
> Joanne
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 7:21 AM, David Booth<david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>
>> FYI, here is the comment that Rafael, Michel, Conor and I submitted to
>> the US government Office of the National Coordinator for Health
>> Information Technology, in response to their RFC on "Meaningful Use"
>> requirements, proposing RDF / Linked Data as a universal exchange
>> language of healthcare:
>> http://dbooth.org/2013/mu/MU-Stage3-RFC-Simple-Response.pdf
>>
>> Although it is too late to change that submitted comment (as the
>> deadline was last night), we would still appreciate any feedback or
>> suggestions for improvement, as I'm sure we will have to make these
>> arguments and explanations many more times in the future.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>> http://dbooth.org/
>>
>> Loss of web prodigy Aaron Swartz: http://tinyurl.com/ahe2k8c
>>
>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
>> reflect those of his employer.
>>
>>
--
D. Rebholz-Schuhmann - mailto:d.rebholz.schuhmann@gmail.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 12:59:20 UTC