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: Dan Russler <dan.russler@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:42:10 -0400
Message-ID: <48109C42.6030900@oracle.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>, Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, public-hcls-coi@w3.org, Elkin.Peter@MAYO.EDU
Agreed...Peter already got us to change....Of course, I thought more 
people would confuse the term with "first order reaction" or "first 
order kinetics" than with "first order logic."

Dan



Pat Hayes wrote:

> At 10:46 AM -0400 4/21/08, Dan Russler wrote:
>
>> Peter and Vipul...See below...dan
>>
>> Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
>>
>>>  
>>
>>>
>>>     IMHO, codes don't represent classes in some information model.
>>>     An information model has classes like Observation, whose
>>>     instances are clinical statements made by some entity (person or
>>>     machine). I think information model is "meta" in the sense that
>>>     its instances are statements  
>>>     [VK] This the reason I think theHL7 is a meta-model rather than
>>>     an Information Model. Of course this depends on the viewpoint
>>>     you take and the information architecture you adopt.
>>>
>> <dan> With apologies to Peter in case I misrepresented your SOA 
>> presentation...Last week, Peter Elkin of Mayo Clinic delivered a 
>> presentation where he called the HL7 RIM a "first order ontology" 
>> because of the abstraction level of the RIM. He called the models 
>> derived from the RIM, e.g. analytic models, patient care document 
>> models like CDA, etc, "second order ontology" because they add a 
>> layer of concreteness to the abstractions of the RIM, i.e. an object 
>> with classCode of observation and moodCode of order becomes an 
>> "observation order object" with neither a classCode nor a moodCode. 
>> Finally, the coding systems themselves support the concreteness of a 
>> "third order ontology." For example, the SNOMED concept becomes an 
>> object itself without a code attribute, moodCode attribute, or 
>> classCode attribute, e.g. a WBC order. />
>
>
>
> AAArgh, can I plead that we do NOT use this terminology in this way? 
> The "first/second/higher-order" terminology already has a firmly 
> established and very precise use to refer to types of logic, and hence 
> of ontology languages. Just don't say 'order'. Use some other word, 
> please. Thanks.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
>
>-- 
>  
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC               (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.       (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                 (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                     (850)291 0667    cell
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
> http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
>
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 14:44:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 April 2008 14:44:05 GMT