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

RE: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards An alternative approach

From: Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C] <meadch@mail.nih.gov>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:39:30 -0400
To: Conor Dowling <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: "Peter.Hendler@kp.org" <Peter.Hendler@kp.org>, "helena.deus@deri.org" <helena.deus@deri.org>, "kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com" <kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com>, "LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu" <LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu>, "mscottmarshall@gmail.com" <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "ratnesh.sahay@deri.org" <ratnesh.sahay@deri.org>
Message-ID: <4D241B2CAA657641A30147AA5BF6AE782BB2802A3E@NIHMLBX07.nih.gov>
Certainly the higher level (in the class hierarchy) of the HL7 RIM have nothing in particular to do with healthcare, i.e. Entities, Persons, Organizations, Locations, Materials assuming time-based "static" Roles (capability, , capacity, competency) and then Participating in time-boxed/context-sensitive Acts which in turn can be "strung together" through semantically codable Act Relationships could apply in just about any context.  The healthcare specificity comes from the lower RIM classes, e.g. Provider, Patient, SubstanceAdminitration, etc.

charlie 
________________________________________
From: Conor Dowling [conor-dowling@caregraf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:54 AM
To: David Booth
Cc: Peter.Hendler@kp.org; helena.deus@deri.org; kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com; LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu; Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C]; mscottmarshall@gmail.com; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; ratnesh.sahay@deri.org
Subject: Re: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards An alternative approach

apologies if this is a tangent but why is what's identified as "extensional" particular to health-care? "Who" said/observed/found/acted "What", "When" and "Where" is surely a general notion. Does it need a health-care model or ontology? Yes, particular findings or observations or procedures can be of health but also of finance, indeed of most of life. "Constantine boiled his wife in 326" talks of who, what and when.

Does Health-care need its own (closed-world) model for "observation" ("kill method" == "boil") vs "finding" ("was the boiler") or "procedure" ("dunk and hold down"). Just as we should avoid our own ontologies for demographics (a provider's address is not different than the address of a supermarket), shouldn't we avoid special handling for the likes of "observe", "find", "act" and leave each domain concentrate on its particular observations, findings et al? That is, SNOMED gets to be health-special but what here is called the "extensional model", that is so general (again, maybe I'm missing something), doesn't that belong with FOAF et al?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org<mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 15:11 -0700, Peter.Hendler@kp.org<mailto:Peter.Hendler@kp.org> wrote:
> [ . . . ]  Can you use RDF in a closed world way when ever you want,
> or is it only safe when the model you're dealing with, like FHIR,
> really is known to be closed world?
>
I think so, provided that you understand that you are making the closed
world assumption, i.e., that your results reflect only what you
*currently* know.

Almost every application makes the closed world assumption at some
point.


--
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 11:44:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:01:13 GMT