W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > January 2013

RE: Opening Walled Gardens: RDF / Linked Data as the Universal Exchange Language of Healthcare

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:08:10 -0500
To: "Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C]" <meadch@mail.nih.gov>
Cc: "Sivaram Arabandi, MD" <sivaram.arabandi@gmail.com>, RebholzSchuhmann <d.rebholz.schuhmann@gmail.com>, Joanne Luciano <jluciano@gmail.com>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>, Conor Dowling <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>, Rafael Richards <rmrich5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1358269690.31285.79190.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Hi Charlie,

On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 16:06 +0000, Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C] wrote:
> I think that the core concept here is that RDF provides a common model
> for representation of content at the conceptual or logical level <<as
> well as>> for the serialized/wire format level, thereby focusing all
> interoperability issues on semantics rather than technology barriers,
> semantic transformation impedance as one moves from conceptual to
> implementation representations, or other serialization "brittleness"
> such as what occurs with vanilla XML where it is easy to produce two
> semantically equivalent conceptual/logical representations that
> serialize differently and are therefore non-interoperable.

That's a great way of putting it!
> 
> Starting with RDF or OWL representations of the HL7 RIM (actually the
> MIF since you need data types and terminology bindings and there
> relationships to the RIM as well as the RIM itself) enables the
> semantic standards expressed in the "idiosyncratic formats" you
> mention then becomes an instance of RDF representation drawn from an
> underlying RDF/OWL representation, i.e. we need to base
> interoperability on the representation of standards in RDF.  The
> standards-derived artifacts then become focused on semantics rather
> than other spurious issues.
> 
> The first version of the HL7 MIF in OWL is now available for comment,
> criticism, evolution, and usage.

Excellent!

David


> 
> charlie
> ________________________________________
> From: Sivaram Arabandi, MD [sivaram.arabandi@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:03 AM
> To: RebholzSchuhmann
> Cc: Joanne Luciano; David Booth; public-semweb-lifesci; Michel Dumontier; Conor Dowling; Rafael Richards
> Subject: Re: Opening Walled Gardens: RDF / Linked Data as the Universal Exchange  Language of Healthcare
> 
> Agree with this and want to add one more - this statement from the document:
>         "Meaningful Use currently mandates a patchwork of idiosyncratic formats, such as HL7, CCD/ C32, CCR, NCPDP SCRIPT, C-CDA and QRDA. While such formats provide a degree of machine processability, in comparison, RDF offers significant advantages:"
> 
>         - How can you compare RDF to these models? Surely you can serialize data that conforms to these standards into RDF, no?
> 
> thanks
> Sivaram
> ___________________________________
> Sivaram Arabandi, MD, MS
> ONTOPRO
> www.ontopro.com
> T  832.726.2322
> E  s.arabandi@ontopro.com
> 
> Think Semantics. Tame Silos.
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 6:58 AM, RebholzSchuhmann wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > don't know how someone reads this, who does not know all these benefits anyways. Reads as if you are selling RDF to somebody who knows half-way the benefits of RDF.
> > It would have made sense to be more precise on the privacy and security issues. Neither RDF nor XML have been developed to address privacy / security, and either one is highly important in healthcare systems.  Do you have even stronger arguments for privacy and security issues?
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> >    -drs-
> >
> > On 15/01/2013 12:41, Joanne Luciano wrote:
> >> Thanks for doing this.
> >> Joanne
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On Jan 15, 2013, at 7:21 AM, David Booth<david@dbooth.org>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> FYI, here is the comment that Rafael, Michel, Conor and I submitted to
> >>> the US government Office of the National Coordinator for Health
> >>> Information Technology, in response to their RFC on "Meaningful Use"
> >>> requirements, proposing RDF / Linked Data as a universal exchange
> >>> language of healthcare:
> >>> http://dbooth.org/2013/mu/MU-Stage3-RFC-Simple-Response.pdf
> >>>
> >>> Although it is too late to change that submitted comment (as the
> >>> deadline was last night), we would still appreciate any feedback or
> >>> suggestions for improvement, as I'm sure we will have to make these
> >>> arguments and explanations many more times in the future.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> David Booth, Ph.D.
> >>> http://dbooth.org/
> >>>
> >>> Loss of web prodigy Aaron Swartz: http://tinyurl.com/ahe2k8c
> >>>
> >>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> >>> reflect those of his employer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > --
> > D. Rebholz-Schuhmann - mailto:d.rebholz.schuhmann@gmail.com
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Loss of web prodigy Aaron Swartz: http://tinyurl.com/ahe2k8c

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 17:08:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:01:17 GMT