Re: SNOW Shrine Ontology

2017-10-03 Thread Phillip Reeder
Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 1:47 PM To: Andrew Hangsleben <hangs...@umn.edu<mailto:hangs...@umn.edu>> Cc: "GPC-DEV@LISTSERV.KUMC.EDU<mailto:GPC-DEV@LISTSERV.KUMC.EDU>" <GPC-DEV@listserv.kumc.edu<mailto:GPC-DEV@listserv.kumc.edu>> Subject: RE: SNOW Shri

RE: SNOW Shrine Ontology

2017-10-03 Thread Dan Connolly
, 2017 1:18 PM To: Dan Connolly Cc: GPC-DEV@LISTSERV.KUMC.EDU Subject: Re: SNOW Shrine Ontology Thanks Dan, we should be up and running at UMN now; I ran a few queries to verify we were returning results. Out of curiosity, is there any reason we aren't using the PCORnet ontology directly

Re: SNOW Shrine Ontology

2017-10-03 Thread Andrew Hangsleben
Thanks Dan, we should be up and running at UMN now; I ran a few queries to verify we were returning results. Out of curiosity, is there any reason we aren't using the PCORnet ontology directly in shrine instead of the shrine ontology + adapter mappings? Regards, Andrew On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at

RE: SNOW Shrine Ontology

2017-10-03 Thread Dan Connolly
Yes, that's how it works. #411 should have details. -- Dan From: Gpc-dev [gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu] on behalf of Andrew Hangsleben [hangs...@umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 10:43 AM