radical idea - where term value sets should be defined in archetypes.
thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
Tue Jan 14 13:06:58 EST 2014
On 14/01/2014 11:07, Diego Boscá wrote:
> I like the idea, we were already exploring something similar to this
> for intra-archetype semantic relationships.
> I have two questions/suggestions:
> -once the vsXXXX is intoduced, do we still need to specify it as
> "local". Wouldn't be always be local from now on?
good point. I'll have to think about that, although even if we think
"vs1001" is 'obviously' an 'archetype' code, but there's no guarantee
some external terminology doesn't have a code like "vsNNN" so for now
I'd like to keep "local". I'm not religious about it - if we can
convince ourselves we can throw it out, fine by me.
> -I would suggest to use directly rdf triplets in the relationship
> part. I think the proposal is too verbose. Also, it would be great if
> we could define a set of relation types
That's sort of what I was trying to do, but in ODIN (i.e. dADL). I don't
like raw RDF, but we could do something like Turtle syntax
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-turtle-20120710/>. We can do two things -
we either embed real Turtle (or whatever) syntax, or we ODIN-ise it,
which means that it can be deserialised in to in-memory objects that
follow an RDF triple model. The second option is nicer from the software
point of view, because it avoids having too many different syntaxes in
one document, and a generic deserialiser (which we have for ODIN/dADL in
various languages) will just convert it into objects. But I'm not
against doing it the other way either if that made more sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-technical