W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2012

RE: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards

From: Sahay, Ratnesh <ratnesh.sahay@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:16:43 +0100
Message-ID: <316ADBDBFE4F4D4AA4FEEF7496ECAEF9083596AD@EVS1.ac.nuigalway.ie>
To: <Peter.Hendler@kp.org>, <LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu>
Cc: <kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com>, <meadch@mail.nih.gov>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Fox, Ronan" <ronan.fox@deri.org>
Hi Peter and All,


I think entities that are part of Version 3 XML coreSchemas (e.g,
Vocabulary ) can be represented in OWL or DL, however problem is with
local models (e.g., RMIM) that are context-specific (i.e., time, place,
event dependent information).  One observation in the article below:
"One major characteristic of this Extensional logic is that "classes
must be extended by the authors of the model.".  It is also the case
with the Intensional logic. For example, class-subclass relation needs
to be explicitly stated here as well, with a feature of inference that
may entail  additional relations. I think one of the main differences
between closed-world UML/object-oriented paradigm and open-world
(ontologies) is use of properties.   An ontology property appears, at a
first glance, to be the same as the UML association or attribute.
However, properties in an ontology are first-class modelling elements,
while the UML association or attribute is attached to UML classes where
they are described. This means the UML association or attribute cannot
exist in isolation or as a self-describing entity defining relationships
such as inheritance. More precisely, in an ontology a relation can exist
without specifying any classes to which it might relate.  Some key
benefits that I see of using Semantic Web for the HL7 standard:  


(1 ) Semantic Web technologies as a "common medium" where the upper
layer (Information Model or terminologies in OWL) and lower layer (data
in RDF) can be engaged with each other during the

integration process. Without the need of transformation (or mediation)
between them, as is the case with UML-XML based systems.

(2)  The mutual use of Semantic Web technologies as a "common medium"
between upper and lower layers provide computable semantics of the
information models (as ontologies), improving

the reuse and overall data integration.


There are other benefits (and limitations as well) but that require long





From: Peter.Hendler@kp.org [mailto:Peter.Hendler@kp.org] 
Sent: 15 August 2012 16:18
To: LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu
Cc: kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com; meadch@mail.nih.gov;
Subject: RE: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards


Just did a white paper on it.  I don't think it's a good idea in general
to put clinical models all in OWL or DL at all. 
That part is best left to the SNOMED vocabulary part. 

Here is a very recent paper on how to mix the Extensional and
Intensional parts of the models according to how HL7 V3 does it and how
Kaiser does it. 


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.

"Lin MD, Simon" <LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu> 

08/15/2012 08:11 AM 


"Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C]" <meadch@mail.nih.gov>, Kerstin Forsberg
<kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com>, HCLS hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>



RE: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards



Great topic! I can imagine a potential white paper from this group. 

Besides technology, factors to consider might include: flexibility,
implementation cost, return on investments, path to migration etc.

Best regards,


Simon Lin, MD
Director, Biomedical Informatics Research Center 
Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation 
1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449 
Office 715-221-7299 

For scheduling assistance, please contact
     Crystal Gumz, Administrative Secretary

-----Original Message-----
From: Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C] [mailto:meadch@mail.nih.gov
<mailto:meadch@mail.nih.gov> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:02 AM
To: Kerstin Forsberg; HCLS hcls
Subject: RE: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards

I would say Yes -- particularly since there is now an effort to
represent some of newest HL7 standards -- FHIR resource definitions in
particular -- using SW approaches...and the BRIDG OWL representation
will almost certainly benefit from this effort.

From: Kerstin Forsberg [kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:57 AM
To: HCLS hcls
Subject: FDA: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards

FDA seeks "input from industry, technology vendors, and other members of
the public regarding the advantages and disadvantages of current and
emerging open, consensus-based standards for the exchange of regulated
study data. "

In the annoncement for a meeting 5 November FDA ask for responses,
before 5 October, on questions such as "- What are the advantages and
disadvantages of HL7 v3 and CDISC ODM?"

And, interestingly, they also ask: "- Are there other open data exchange
standards that should be evaluated?"

Is this an opportunity for a semantic web based proposal?

Kind Regards

Kerstin Forsberg



The contents of this message may contain private, protected and/or
privileged information.  If you received this message in error, you
should destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you
are prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any
information contained within.  Please contact the sender and advise of
the erroneous delivery by return e-mail or telephone.  Thank you for
your cooperation.
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 16:17:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:56 UTC