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

RE: Multi-layered Knowledge Representations for Healthcare (was RE: An argument for bridging information models and ontologies at the syntactic level)

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 08:00:14 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D1240294857A@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Elkin, Peter L., M.D." <Elkin.Peter@mayo.edu>, <dan.russler@oracle.com>
Cc: "Samson Tu" <swt@stanford.edu>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <public-hcls-coi@w3.org>
Dear Peter,
 
Apologies for the delay in responding  There'a a lot of stuff going around right
now and I needed some "think" time. Responses to your questions are included
inline.


	In order to not confuse the Ontology classification with First Order /
Second Order / Higher Order logics, we use Level 1 Ontologies to be domain
independent (EAV just being a representational mechanism for a logical system), 
	
	[VK] Metamodels may be viewed as domain independent and based on your
descriptions so far Level 1 Ontologies do appear to be similar to the Meta Model
layer
	 
	 level 2 Ontologies are domain dependent (e.g. CDA), and level three
contain defined instances as well as class based definitions.  We have been able
to make these distinctions work across multiple projects.  If there is a level
zero 
	 
	[VK]  Our Level 2 proposal seem to be similar with the difference being
that my proposal seeks to spearate instances into Layer 3 and keeps classes in
Layer 2. I believe that there is value in distinguishing between classes and
instances. Level zero may be viewed as a simple subject-predicate-object
representation as in RDF. Upper level ontologies can also be represented in this
either at Level 1 or the MetaModel layer.
	 
	I believe we need a final single formal representational schema where
constructions defined across Information Models and Terminological Models can be
validated.  
	[VK] Absolute agreement there. There is no need to represent Infromation
Models and Terminologies separately, in fact that could lead to confilcts such
as the same piece of knowledge represent inconsistently in an Information Model
and Terminology.
	 
	 This interlingua should be defined from transforms from all other valid
logical languages and should empower all those SMEs familiar with any valid
logical system to work as they are comfortable.  I
	[VK] This is a critical requirement which is important to make it all
work. There have to be well defined and sound transformations from and into the
interlingua from any logical system. Of course we would need to work through
issues of varying expresiveness of all these formalisms.
	 
	 n the end, that work product must be validated through the common
interlingua to ensure that meaning is preserved and therefore we are not
creating unrecognized ambiguity.
	[VK] Agreed!
	 
	Peter: Do you have a document summarizing these thoughts which could be
viewed as requirements or desiderata which you could share with us?
	 
	Thanks and Regards,
	 
	---Vipul 


The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only
for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this
information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and
properly dispose of this information.
Received on Saturday, 31 May 2008 12:01:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 31 May 2008 12:01:01 GMT