Stream: terminology
Topic: concept-map-equivalence and SKOS
David Booth (Feb 03 2017 at 03:26):
I notice there is a lot of similarity between FHIR concept map equivalence codes
http://build.fhir.org/valueset-concept-map-equivalence.html#expansion
and relationships from the W3C SKOS vocabulary,
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference
like skos:broader, skos:narrower, and skos:exactMatch. Are they fully aligned? If not, could they be?
Rob Hausam (Feb 03 2017 at 14:37):
That's a good question, David, and probably worth looking at. I've noticed the similarity, but I hadn't thought before about any more formal mapping or alignment. SKOS doesn't have anything for 'subsumes' - it would have to be rdfs:subClassOf for that, I think. It might be worth creating a tracker to look at the alignment and at least consider providing some documentation in STU4.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 06 2017 at 02:51):
agree
Michael Lawley (Feb 07 2017 at 01:00):
some yes, but I'm skeptical of skos:exactMatch having a good alignment
Rob Hausam (Feb 07 2017 at 09:54):
That could be, but how exactly would you suggest measuring (or otherwise determining) the degree of alignment?
Michael Lawley (Feb 08 2017 at 06:50):
Obviously with a ConceptMap :)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
