- From: Anders Riutta <anders.riutta@gladstone.ucsf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:15:29 -0800 (PST)
- To: w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
- Cc: HL7 ITS <its@lists.hl7.org>
This should be possible, because one of the key design objectives for JSON-LD is to allow existing JSON to be interpreted as Linked Data with zero edits to the JSON document, most of the time (paraphrasing from [1]). Anders Riutta [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#design-goals-and-rationale ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lloyd McKenzie" <lloyd@lmckenzie.com> > To: "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org> > Cc: "w3c semweb HCLS" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "HL7 ITS" <its@lists.hl7.org> > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:58:24 AM > Subject: Re: FHIR as JSON-LD? [was Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI call -- > Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)] > > If the *only* change to the JSON syntax was the addition of a single > @context at the root of each element (and/or bundle), that might be > sellable as part of the official JSON syntax. (Particularly if that could > be established as a simple fixed value and perhaps even stand in place of > our existing "type" element.) However, if we need to do anything to the > JSON that makes it less friendly than that, it would likely need to be a > distinct syntax. > > -------------------------------------- > Lloyd McKenzie > > +1-780-993-9501 > > > > Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions > expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients nor > those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. > ...message truncated...
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 19:15:53 UTC