Semantic Clause Samples

Semantic processing

Semantic class of the referent: we always code the referent, not the noun (e.g. kanisa ‘church’ could be a physical object or an institution, depending on context) • human • kinship term • environment (field, river etc.) • animal • physical object (can be touched) • abstract entity (cannot be touched), but not an event • event (involves the time dimension) • organization • anthropomorphic (god, angels, demons, etc.)

Semantic. Images: umjanedoan, CC BY 2.0, Law books on a shelf. ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/photos/umjanedoan/497364007, "Environmental Law Practice Guide“ ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/photos/umjanedoan/497364021/in/photostream/ Technology Policies Processes Semantic Images: Intel Free Press, Child with Apple iPad, ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/photos/intelfreepress/8433147083 General Services Administration. National Archives and Records Service. Office of Educational Programs. Education Division. ARC Identifier 3493233. Process Part A Action B Process Part A Action B Finish Result C Transformation Technology Policies Users Processes Semantic Technology Policies Users Processes

Semantic. Images: U. S. Army Photo, Two women operating the ENIAC, ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/wiki/File:Two_women_operating_ENIAC.gif Jfreyre, typical server rack, ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/wiki/File:Rack001.jpg, Attribution-Share Alike Technology Users

Semantic terminology and definitions. The COBACORE data framework architecture is predicated on spatial orientation and utilises location as the consistent variable within the confines of a disaster event which can serve to link and derive commonality across diverse and disparate datasets in order to enhance the functionality and analytical capacity of the COBACORE data framework. As a consequence of the GIS based architecture being developed within the COBACORE framework, Geospatial data standards will govern the design and development. The implications and necessary standards conformance are discussed in Section 2.1. The remainder of the chapter will explore existing ontologies (Section 2.2.) and vocabularies (Section 2.3) which have been applied within the confines of crisis response in order to optimise commonality of understanding and systems integration. The final section details the semantic modelling requirements for the data framework in order to optimise interoperability.

Semantic agreement when the controller comprises several nouns

Semantic services are used to annotate the files. The storage service only accesses this services that are deployed over the Internet to get the tags/classes of DON that are useful for annotation purposes. As mentioned before, the storage service follows a mixed approach. When users want to share/upload a file, two different scenarios are possible: • The user wants to store a file in a centralized repository directly managed by the storage service. • The user wants to maintain the file and provides a public and accessible URI/reference to retrieve such file when required.

Semantic. Information Layer In this section some of the (non-independent) aspects related to the capability of the exchanged contents (e.g. the CDA template for the Patient Summary) to support the proposed IDMP-based model are described, in particular: 1. What are the possible approaches for expressing the IDMP identifiers (§ 7.1.1) 2. Current limitations with the identification of IDMP IDs and used code systems (OID, URL) (§ 7. 3. What are the known issues and possible solutions with the most commonly used standards (§ 7.1.3) In this description it has been assumed that the IDMP identifiers and attributes are known, and common vocabularies have been agreed. Since this condition will be realized in a long term timeframe. Some considerations on how to manage the transitional phase have also been provided. (§ 7.1.4). 7.1.1 Possible approaches for expressing the IDMP identifiers Assuming that IDMP IDs are known and correctly identified, in a first approximation, the following possible approaches for representing them in the exchanged content can be considered: 1) represent the identifiers that have to be exchanged as additional identifiers / codes associated to a single piece of information (class, segment, field). [Alternative Identifiers] 2) make a model mapping, that is map the distinct IDMP concepts into a separate piece of information (class, segment, field) and then assign the appropriate IDMP ID to the mapped “piece” [Model Mapping] 3) use a combination of the above solutions. [Mixed approach] For the sake of brevity, the third solution will not be analysed here since the same considerations done for the other two can be replicated for this mixed approached, weighting how much of the model mapping and of the alternative identifiers approaches is used. Hereafter some examples of the first two cases: <hl7:manufacturedMaterial> <!-- Example with all the IDMP Levels (PhPID,MPID, PCID) and other attributes used in epSOS (e.g. ingredients, ATC, strengths) --> <hl7:code codeSystem="OID_Local_CodeSystem" code="Local_ID" displayName="" CodeSystemName="Local Code System"> <hl7:translation codeSystem="OID_MP" code="MPID" displayName="" CodeSystemName="MP"/> <hl7:translation codeSystem="OID_PhP_ID_Lvl4" code="PhPID_Lvl4" displayName="" CodeSystemName="PhP"/> </hl7:code> <hl7:name>Product Name</hl7:name> <cpm:formCode codeSystem="0.4.0.127.0.16.1.1.2.1" code="10219000" displayName="tablet"Co deSystemName="EDQM"/> <!-- Omissis --> </hl7:manufacturedMaterial> <hl7:manufactured...

Semantic. Images: NASA – ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Flight Research Center Photo Collection - ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/Gallery/Photo/Places/HTML/E49-54.html