W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > December 2010

RE: Wait a sec...What about the HL7 RIM An Universal Exchange Language

From: Michael Miller <mmiller@systemsbiology.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:47:34 -0800
Message-ID: <9e34bf25fc97ce5e80ac3ce28e5aea15@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter.Hendler@kp.org, twclark@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
hi all,

"unambiguous identifier for "things""

i agree, this has been a known issue for many years (as you well know, tim)
but its importance is just now growing as multi-omics studies and sharing of
EHR records is becoming more common.

"It is HL7 V3"

i also agree, in a sense, with this.  HL7 messages capture information as a
whole, as an entity, so in that representation it is also true that semantic
web technologies would have a hard time, as is, making sense of them because
semantic web technologies wants a fact by fact representation, e.g. triple

as a software developer i've found both view points useful depending on the
task at hand.  some applications present themselves as better able to relate
entities as a whole with each other (typical OO designs) where as others
that want to relate entities to each other to discover similarities and
differences lend themselves to the semantic web approach.  yes, one can try
to force semantic web technologies on applications that involve live
workflow pipelines and one could write applications to try and search over
HL7 XML formats and they would work to some degree but i think there is a
place for both approaches.

i also feel that it wouldn't be hard to present HL7 messages as meaningful
triple stores, especially since they make extensive use of controlled



*From:* public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org [mailto:
public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter.Hendler@kp.org
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:18 AM
*To:* markw@illuminae.com
*Cc:* public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org;
*Subject:* Wait a sec...What about the HL7 RIM An Universal Exchange

The PCAST did not take into consideration (maybe they don't even know) there
is an universal exchange language for healthcare.  It is HL7 V3.  The CDA is
merely one of virtually infinite structures that can be constructed from the
RIM.  The meta information as well as the clinical data is unambiguously
represented by RIM.  There is no reason to ignore the thousands of man years
that went into designing the RIM.  The RIM Based Application Architecture
 (RIMBAA) work group at HL7 has had many demonstrations of RIM based
applications.  We don't need to re invent the wheel.  CDA is only one
particular RIM structure designed for one particular use case.  Those of us
who have been working at HL7 for years are blown away by the suggestion that
there needs to be a different wheel invented.

*NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:*  If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or
disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this
e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.
 Thank you.

*Mark <markw@illuminae.com>*
Sent by: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org

12/14/2010 06:44 PM


"Tim Clark" <twclark@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>




Re: An Universal Exchange Language

But seriously, Tim, if we were to pursue this problem, we would need some
form of unambiguous identifier for "things"... and given the distributed
nature of the biomedical domain, we'd want to make sure that there was
some way of resolving that identifier to obtain metadata about it from a
variety of disparate sources who might have very different information -
clinical, molecular, demographic, etc...

Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 18:31:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:44 UTC