Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons'

Hi All,

I agree with the points Helen & Chimezie are making here.  HL7 RIM  
cannot be used "as is" as a well-founded ontology.

However, as we are finding with many such knowledge sources that  
aren't quite appropriate for use as ontologies themselves, I think  
RIM's focus on roles provides an excellent starting for defining the  
types of people/actors one needs to formally represent - and the  
various roles they may play.  If analyzed carefully, many of the HL7  
RIM roles could - for instance - end up defined as relations in RDF  
with a defined domain/range - and used as the basis of constructing  
necessary (possible necessary & sufficient) "person/actor"  
restrictions in OWL.

I'm not an expert in the use of HL7, but that's my take on how best  
to derive value from it, when seeking to construct an effective,  
formally-sound ontology for describing people and the roles they play  
in a healthcare setting.

I believe FOAF representations of "people" - especially when used  
with Wordnet synsets, as well as the openEHR - person demographic  
definition that Helen cites - can also provide a great deal of  
insight on the sort of properties a "person" ontology might be called  
on to represent.

I would also recommend the paper Chimezie cites as an useful critique  
on some of the pitfalls such model-based representations have when  
one seeks to use them as the basis for a reasoning application, such  
as a decision support system.

Cheers,
Bill

On Sep 13, 2006, at 8:30 PM, helen.chen@agfa.com wrote:

>
> Hi, Chimezie
>
> Although it is questionable whether HL7 RIM can be converted to a  
> "good" healthcare domain ontology, in this discussion of a "person"  
> description (ontology), I agree with Dirk on looking at RIM's  
> description of Person and its attributes for healthcare domain.   
> You will find some overlapping with vCard-rdf, and additional  
> attributes which are meaningful in healthcare, such as raceCode,  
> ethnicGroupCode, maritalStatus, etc.
>
> For "person" in healthcare domain, we can also look at openEHR's  
> archtype "person"  [1].  But I think HL7's description of "person"  
> has fully content.
>
>
>
> [1] openEHR Archtype "person" http://svn.openehr.org/knowledge/ 
> archetypes/dev/adl/openehr/demographic/openehr-demographic- 
> person.person.draft.html
>
> Helen
> http://www.agfa.com/w3c/hchen
>
>
>
> Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
> Sent by: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
> 09/13/2006 10:03 AM
>
> To
> Dirk Colaert/AMIPU/AGFA@AGFA
> cc
> systemsbiology <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> Subject
> Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There are ontological inconsistencies [1] with HL7 RIM that warrant a
> closer look.  Though, admittedly, the criticism is more about HL7's
> Actions than its Roles.
>
> [1] http://ontology.buffalo.edu/HL7/doublestandards.pdf
>
> Chimezie Ogbuji
> Lead Systems Analyst
> Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
> Cleveland Clinic Foundation
> 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
> Cleveland, Ohio 44195
> Office: (216)444-8593
> ogbujic@ccf.org
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 dirk.colaert@agfa.com wrote:
>
> > I am just popping into this thread. Why don't we look at RIM (HL7
> > Reference Information Model)?
> > They distinguish 'entities' (a person is an entity) and roles:  
> 'patient',
> > 'doctor', etc are examples of roles. That gives you an easy way  
> of using a
> > standard description of a person, common to other communities,  
> reusing
> > what exists, and still you can add properties to the rol  
> 'patient' to have
> > whatever you need, specific in Health Care and Life Sciences.
> >
> > you can download the RIM model at
> > http://www.hl7.org/library/data-model/RIM/modelpage_mem.htm
> >
> > ______________________________________
> > Dr. Dirk Colaert MD
> > Advanced Clinical Application Research Manager
> > Agfa Healthcare               mobile: +32 497 470 871
> >
> >
> >
> > Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> > Sent by: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
> > 13/09/2006 06:47
> >
> > To
> > Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> > cc
> > systemsbiology <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> > Subject
> > Re: A question on the vocabulary for 'persons'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I had been using FOAF as a basis and then adding relations as  
> needed.
> > -Alan
> >
> > On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> we would need some feedback...
> >>
> >> There were some brainstorming on what vocabularies to use for the
> >> simple
> >> notion of 'Person' in various settings. There is old W3C note for
> >> an RDF
> >> version of vCard[1], but another version was created by Norm  
> Walsh a
> >> while ago[2]. And, of course, there is FOAF.
> >>
> >> The issue came up because some people would like us to update  
> the old
> >> [1] note but, if we want to do that seriously, it is not  
> necessarily
> >> that easy (the vCard spec itself is not soooo o.k.).
> >>
> >> Hence the question as a feedback: what does the HCLS community  
> use for
> >> something like 'Person'?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback
> >>
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf
> >> [2] http://norman.walsh.name/2005/12/12/vcard
> >> --
> >>
> >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> >> URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> >> PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
> >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf#Me
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Bill Bug
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer

Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
www.neuroterrain.org
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA    19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)


Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu







This email and any accompanying attachments are confidential. 
This information is intended solely for the use of the individual 
to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or use of this email communication by others is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us 
immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete 
all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.