W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > November 2006

Minutes 11-16-06 HCLS teleconference

From: Hongsermeier, Tonya M.,M.D. <THONGSERMEIER@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:04:31 -0500
Message-ID: <F2F92B1BD5EABC4EA6ECB96CD2EE87860266F2CE@PHSXMB1.partners.org>
To: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Cc: "Eric Neumann" <eneumann@teranode.com>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Thurs, Nov 16 Teleconference Agenda:
>
> Agenda:
> a) Convene, take roll, review record
> b) Propose next HCLS call Nov 30, 2006, nominate a scribe  - Tonya
> c) Update of Agreed Task Actions- any changes in group timelines?  
Alan and Jonathan are to draft what they have presented on URI resolution, but
they are not on this teleconference, Eric will work with them to help push that
forward.  Eric thinks we still need to write an attachment on use of HTTPs for
persistence of URIs,  the TAG document has a lot of relevance to Life Sciences
industry,  rather than voting, we should put our thoughts down and associate
with the tag.  Other Thoughts?  Susie:  Sounds good to me.  

Vipul, Olivier and Eric did a workshop at AMIA, Olivier is willing to move UMLS
into URI semantic web space, but looking for guidance on how to expose as some
for of RDF.  

Olivier:  I am open to suggestions.  Eric will work with John and Alan to ensure
they are aware and can help the group provide comments.

Helen: update on ACPP-  we have material posted on the Wiki, in Googledoc...
Eric will get template from Ivan, they will send the link out in short time.  We
are not focused on temporal reasoning right now.  Eric: W3C encourages early
sharing of drafts for comment and review.   How about Alan Ruttenberg's mention
of using inumerable classes, Helen:  we had some discussion, had RIM ontology,
which uses lots of default values, what else should we produce?    This isn't
part of the ACPP ontology,  it's a separate note on how to deal with Hl7 -
Helen proposes a note on the existing methods of use, and thoughts on
implications on how to deal with optional things and how to deal with fixed
values, describing scenarios to converting HL7 and problems encountered,
pros/cons, things to be mindful?    Bill Bug- has anyone considered using SCOS
for this?  Designed to support this.....if SCOS doesn't work, either OWL or SCOS
needs fixing  Eric: consider action item to create a note on this topic, but
perhaps as a later action item given all currently on the plate....all agreed,
but will come back to this at a future date

Joint action between BioOnt and BioRDF...  Susie:  made some progress in the
demo, makes sense to expand the demo to include Don Doherty's query, looking to
extend to add more story, more story lines while restricting number of data
sets.  We have Parkinson's use case, but don't want to restrict to that, will
include Huntington's and Alzheimer's to leverage that rich community, will make
sure that there are multiple stories.  Secondly, during this week's biordf call,
Bill Bug volunteered to identify more science questions from BERN work,  SWANN
people offer to develop more scientific questions, Also, to make good progress,
they need a deadline, so they are looking at which meetings could generate of
good deadline, ie Spring AMIA, ISMB, or W3C conference.  Minutes are posted to
BioRDF site.  Eric: what is the timeing for use cases?  Susie: dates were
included in the presentation, but can't recall exactly,  Eric:  December or
early 2007?  

Don Doherty/Bill?  Is there a draft of the ontology?  Bill: greatly in arrears
to catch up with Don and Vipul... Eric:  go forward,  Don:  let's do that, and I
wasn't at ISWC, I understand there was much going on....let's catch up and
include Alan and Joanne..... Eric: let's write just enough ontology to support
just enough bridge/re-use to support goals...

On Drug Tox side-  Eric has had multple conversations, are still sketching out
CDISC study tab model,  need to crystallize, ideally between now and
mid-december will develop and post working draft,  have gotten good feedback
from CDISC, 

Any other questions/thoughts on Tasks?  None... 

 d) Issues raised at the HCLS Workshop -
   1) Computer-based Patient Records -  it's a hot topic,  can folks like
Chimezie submit notes?  Or is there a task to be defined around this?   Tonya
suggests we are bordering on the CPR topic via all the existing groups, would
Dan be able to participate?  Chimezie:  It would be very relevant to produce a
note on this topic, particularly on concepts that are more related to the CPR
than biology...  Helen:  raises scope questions.   Eric:  I have read a few of
these articles on CPR/electronic data capture... wouldn't it be worth drafting a
problem description, about why is it an issues- Chimezie agrees this would be a
good approach, the problem space is not well defined.....   Helen: that is a
large topic on its own -  Chimezie - less to do with information modeling = more
with patient problems, disease modeling ---Susie-  NIH is proposing
Translational medicine projects... Chimezie:  Chair of griddle working group
suggests use cases of GRDDL for CPR  Bill:  there is a major effort/NIH finding
neuroinformatics hosting of large data sets where use of GRDDL will be critical
to host these data sets  Eric:  if we add an action item to draft problem state
on CPR, ACTION ITEM:  Chimezie will take a stab at drafting -  Susie, Helen,
Tonya will review


   2) Identifiers to non-information resources, e.g., genus-species names   -
Eric:  how do these get constructed and used?  NCI taxonomy is most widespread
use (Bill Bug), states that it is not authoritative,  a 15 year effort among
collaborators, that is most advanced, they are working through use of URIs as
core of their work....  Eric:  this is another topic to consider how to respond
to questions  Bill:  NCBO and OBO foundry are working with that group  Eric:
will engage Vipul on this topic 

Eric:  Other topics?   Bill Bug-  How do we deal with the fact that OWL 1.1 is
moving forward without RDFS?  It is very concerning what stumbling blocks this
decoupling will create... Ian Horrocks is very clear that the constraints that
RDFs puts on OWL full doesn't support what they need and has caused them to
diverge...tool of choice for OWL 1.1 is something independent of RDF   Eric:
I'm also seeing the challenge as no surprise... RDFs is a partial approach,
probably flawed... I'd be surprised if one can't map from OWL 1.1 to RDF, 

Susie:  in OWL 1.1 discussions, they are saying that they are not talking about
RDF style semantics, could impact the mathematical foundation of RDF but
shouldn't impact usage of RDF,  a working group is be considered to address
this,   Eric:  we are out of time...  Bill: just wanted to put this on the
radar...would like some input from Alan Ruttenberg on this topic...

Next call on Nov 30th... please propose agenda items...



Tonya Hongsermeier, MD, MBA
Corporate Manager, 
Clinical Knowledge Management and Decision Support

Partners HealthCare System
Clinical Informatics Research and Development
93 Worcester Street, PO Box 81905
Wellesley, MA 02481
P: 781.416.9219     Mobile: 617.717.8711
Fax: 781.416.8912  
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:04:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:45 GMT