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

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

From: Sahay, Ratnesh <ratnesh.sahay@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:58:44 +0100
Message-ID: <316ADBDBFE4F4D4AA4FEEF7496ECAEF908644BB7@EVS1.ac.nuigalway.ie>
To: "Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C]" <meadch@mail.nih.gov>, "Conor Dowling" <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>, "David Booth" <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: <Peter.Hendler@kp.org>, "Deus, Helena" <helena.deus@deri.org>, <kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com>, <LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu>, <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
This was the point I made earlier.

HL7 RIM --> OWL RIM (fits well with open-world, Intentional logic)
HL7 RMIM --> OWL RMIM (context specific, open world or closed world
(extensional) depending on the entailments required)

OWL RIM/RMIM is a design-time work concerns with the ability of OWL to
model RIM or RMIM. RDF instances, scalability, etc. is a run-time issue.
However reasoning is both run-time and design-time issue, depending on
the kind of reasoning applied (only tbox, only abox, tbox and abox
together).     

Regards,
Ratnesh


-----Original Message-----
From: Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C] [mailto:meadch@mail.nih.gov] 
Sent: 22 August 2012 12:40
To: Conor Dowling; David Booth
Cc: Peter.Hendler@kp.org; Deus, Helena; kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com;
LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu; mscottmarshall@gmail.com;
public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; Sahay, Ratnesh
Subject: RE: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards An alternative
approach

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 11:59:17 GMT

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