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? -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 2014/1/14 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > > I have created a wiki > page<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/ADL+1.5+-+where+to+define+value+sets>to > describe a possibly radical idea about how we define value sets (like > body position etc) in archetypes. > > all feedback welcome. > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140114/d30f4bb4/attachment.html>
