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

RE: Our white paper on Semantic Node Labeling in Clinical models

From: Sahay, Ratnesh <ratnesh.sahay@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:15:41 +0100
Message-ID: <316ADBDBFE4F4D4AA4FEEF7496ECAEF908645966@EVS1.ac.nuigalway.ie>
To: <Peter.Hendler@kp.org>
Cc: <eric@w3.org>, "Deus, Helena" <helena.deus@deri.org>, <kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com>, <LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu>, <meadch@mail.nih.gov>, <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hi Peter,


I agree that extensional (closed world clinical models) and intentional
(SNOMED) models need a separate treatment. Developers (human)  or
reasoners (machine) need a mechanism to understand their boundary and
act appropriately. For example, below annotations in RED would help
developers to interpret their scope of use. 


--OWL Manchester Syntax---


(1 ) DataProperty: effectiveTime

                Domain: ActLabObservation (*coming from HL7 RIM*)

                Range: xsd:dateTime

                Annotations: rdfs:label "local or extentional property"



(2) ObjectProperty: snomed:DirectSubstance

                Annotations: rdfs:label "Substance on which the lab
procedure method directly acts"

                Annotations: rdfs:label "global or intentional property"


                snomed:DirectSubstance o snomed:HasActiveIngredient


However,  annotations (or lables) are reasoner-insensitive, so the
separation and use of both type of models (extensional, intentional)  is
entirely on a developer's understanding.  IMO, to avoid "undesirable
inferences" by "mixing-up" these two types of models (extensional,
intentional), caution should be taken at a stage where alignments
(subclass, equivalentClass, etc.) are created between them.  Also, there
should be a guideline (for specific settings) about (1) when interfaces
are required (i.e., reasoners); and (2) when only querying (SPARQL) is
sufficient. This will help further on your proposal for SNL. Since long
there has been a discussion on this [1,2] in the Semantic Web Community,
still we need to see something concrete.


[1] B. Motik, I. Horrocks, R. Rosati, and U. Sattler, "Can OWL and Logic
Programming Live Together Happily Ever After?" in International Semantic
Web Conference, 2006, pp. 501-514. [Online]. Available:


[2] B. Motik, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler, "Bridging the gap between OWL
and relational databases," J. Web

Sem., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 74-89, 2009. [Online]. Available:






From: Peter.Hendler@kp.org [mailto:Peter.Hendler@kp.org] 
Sent: 17 September 2012 22:20
To: Sahay, Ratnesh
Cc: eric@w3.org; Deus, Helena; kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com;
LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu; meadch@mail.nih.gov;
mscottmarshall@gmail.com; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Our white paper on Semantic Node Labeling in Clinical models


This very clearly (to me at least) explains the problem and suggested
solution to some of the problems we (Kaiser) see in clinical models. 

Wonder who agrees? 

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.
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 11:16:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:57 UTC