Re: New side by side FHIR RDF comparison

Hi David! Thanks for this clarification, you're right!.
Actually my comment would be relevant where the object is not xsd:string.

Kind Regards,

Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare
Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
T  +32 3444 8188 | M  +32 499 713 300

http://www.agfahealthcare.com

http://blog.agfahealthcare.com

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



From:   David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
To:     Marc Twagirumukiza/AXPZC/AGFA@AGFA, amallia@edmondsci.com
Cc:     "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.HL7.org>, w3c semweb HCLS 
<public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Date:   19/05/2015 15:31
Subject:        Re: New side by side FHIR RDF comparison



Hi Marc,

On 05/19/2015 05:00 AM, Marc Twagirumukiza wrote:
> 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



In Turtle 1.1 the default is now xsd:string.  The following two 
statements have exactly the same meaning:

   [] fhir:value "admin" .
   [] fhir:value "admin"^^xsd:string .

See
http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#h4_turtle-literals

  "If there is no datatype IRI and no language tag, the datatype is 
xsd:string."

David Booth

>
>
> Kind Regards,
> *
> Marc Twagirumukiza | **Agfa HealthCare*
> Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
>
> http://www.agfahealthcare.com <http://www.agfahealthcare.com/>
> http://blog.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)
>
>
> 
***********************************************************************************
> Manage your subscriptions <http://www.HL7.org/listservice> | View the
> archives <http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its> | Unsubscribe
> <
http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=david@dbooth.org&list=its>
> | Terms of use
> <http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules>
>