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

Re: semantic web for EHRs

From: dan russler <dan.russler@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:19:16 -0500
Message-ID: <4B9A4D64.1060803@oracle.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: conor dowling <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Pan, Tony" <tony.pan@emory.edu>, Melliyal Annamalai <melliyal.annamalai@oracle.com>
There is interest in using RDF and OWL to support Semantic Web Services 
over the NHIN.

Anyone interested in helping can contact me.

Dan

On 3/12/2010 8:40 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> conor dowling wrote:
>>
>>     > U.S.? (There's little here from what I can see - the
>>     interoperability push is around SOAP).
>>
>>     In my view, SOAP is the wrong direction.  It is just adds
>>     complexity and
>>     contributes to "babelization":
>>     http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/0717-semweb-dbooth/slide10-0.html
>>
>>
>> you're right but here's the rub - there's $'s in babel. Bad IT - 
>> translation layers and their maintenance - is good business, sometimes.
>>
>> Take the U.S. NHIN CONNECT project whose laudable goal is to allow 
>> patient record exchange between institutions big and small. It 
>> tackles what's need - security, credentials, opt-in etc - and then 
>> ... well, it gets all SOAP'y. Gateways, adapters, layers, all those 
>> layers. What about a "web of interlinked data", just add security 
>> policy ...??
>>
>> It's annoying because think how easy linking is - in reality and now, 
>> not just conceptually, some time away. (I know I'm preaching to the 
>> choir here but ...)
>>
>> Take a patient vital - http://vista.caregraf.org/rambler/120.5/716 
>> (Christopher's blood pressure at a date). This record is typed by the 
>> VA vital type, http://vista.caregraf.org/rambler/120.51/1 (blood 
>> pressure), one of 19 that the system records ( 
>> http://vista.caregraf.org/rambler/120.51 ). Vital type is a "locked 
>> file" ( http://vista.caregraf.org/rambler/schema/120.51 ), one of 
>> many terminology files in VistA.
>>
>> Now, on the face of it, such data is meaningless outside this VistA. 
>> We need a "mapping layer", an "RPC". A "type-mapper". A reformatter. 
>> Layers ...
>>
>> BUT WE KNOW (on this group) that it is trival to do something like ...
>>                         :120.51/1 ---- same as -----> SNOMED:392570002
>> and heh presto, your vitals are "linked". Were Christopher lucky 
>> enough to end up in the Cleveland Clinic then this and his other data 
>> would be trivial to query - no longer site or even VA-specific.
>>
>> And this isn't an isolated case. It's true in general. (I'm working 
>> on an "linked patient browser" - needs very little code - and this 
>> principle holds true for procedures, medicines, vaccines ...).
>> The train is leaving the station on health records (in the U.S. 
>> 'meaningful use' is about to get nailed down) and they're made for 
>> the web of data but all we have are soap bubbles, all a drift ...
> Is there going to be an RDF model based Linked Data View over this 
> data? Or are you looking for help re. Linked Data publishing etc?
>
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 14:20:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:58 GMT