Re: New side by side FHIR RDF comparison

Hi Tony,

Thanks sharing this new version. I was wondering if we should always add 
datatypes.
f.eg on page 26-27-28:

.coding [ 
        fhir:Coding.system [fhir:value “http://example.org/local”

^^xsd:string  ] ; 
        fhir:Coding.code [fhir:value "admin"^^xsd:string  ] ; 
        fhir:Coding.display [fhir:value "Admin"^^xsd:string  ] ; 
        ]; 

If we do that in all places we will be compliant with the fixed 
requirements :
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#9._Datatype_IRIs


Kind Regards,

Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare
Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research

http://www.agfahealthcare.com

http://blog.agfahealthcare.com

Click on link to read important disclaimer: 
http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer 



From:   Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>
To:     "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.HL7.org>, w3c semweb HCLS 
<public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Date:   19/05/2015 02:45
Subject:        New side by side FHIR RDF comparison



I have posted the new version
http://wiki.hl7.org/images/2/25/FHIR_RDF_Sample_side_by_side_comparisons.pdf 


To see all the current stored versions you can go to 
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:FHIR_RDF_Sample_side_by_side_comparisons.pdf


 
This next version shows terminology binding in a fusion between the 
approaches of Grahame and Lloyd.
It brings the singleton instance of the Terminology class right into 
Coding/code and it solves the blank node problem there.
There is also some change to the fhir:Reference approach to simplify it 
and some initial work on Profile showing ValueSet constraints.

Tony Mallia
EDMOND SCIENTIFIC COMPANY (ESC)