W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hcls-coi@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: An argument for bridging information models and ontologies at the syntactic level

From: Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 19:24:05 -0700
Cc: Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu>, "Ogbuji, Chimezie" <OGBUJIC@ccf.org>, <public-hcls-coi@w3.org>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FB20C562-DC4E-42EE-8357-FBF49F79E829@stanford.edu>
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>

On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:58 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:

> It seems to me that we shouldn't throw out an important distinction  
> just because SNOMEDCT has terms that should be expressed in  
> information model.
> [VK] I did not mean to throw out the distinction, but to position  
> the distinction differently. For instance, I would still  
> differentiate between SNOMED-CT the information model
> and SNOMED-CT the terminology, just that I would view SNOMED-CT the  
> terminology as a specialized case of the SNOMED-CT the information  
> model.
>
> So, would propose that the notion of an information model "subsumes"  
> the notion of a terminology.

OK, we disagree on this point. I'd just point out that, if you are  
interested in working with HL7 RIM or BRIDG, you have a conceptual  
mismatch with them.

>
>
> To me, information model = structure and types of information  
> (statements or expressions uttered, recorded, written by somebody).
> [VK] This is part of the disagreement. How about:
> Information Model = Semantics and types of information ...

I am thinking of "information model" as a kind of information-content  
entity in BFO.

>
>  Informational entities (e.g., observations, eligibility criteria)  
> make reference to things in the world through terminology codes  
> (e.g., 57054005 for acute MI in SNOMEDCT).
> [VK] You don't need a terminology to do that. For example, Acute MI  
> could be a class in the Information Model. Further more it could be  
> a sublcass of the Observation/Problems class.
> From the modeling point of view it's not necessary, This decision of  
> referencing external terminology codes appears to be taken due to  
> implementation and scalability considerations..


If your Acute MI is a subclass of Observation/Problem, then instances  
of "Acute MI" class are observations of Acute MI, not instances of the  
disease MI. An "observation" does not have severity, location, and so  
on. You lose the ability to talk about properties of the things in the  
world.  An information model refers to codes not because of  
implementation concern, but because component parts of informational  
entity are also informational entities, IMHO.

Samson
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 02:24:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 April 2008 02:24:44 GMT