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

HL7 RIM Designtime OWL Runtime RDF

From: <Peter.Hendler@kp.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:39:09 -0800
To: meadch@mail.nih.gov
Cc: conor-dowling@caregraf.com, david@dbooth.org, d.rebholz.schuhmann@gmail.com, jluciano@gmail.com, michel.dumontier@gmail.com, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, ri@semanticidentity.com, rmrich5@gmail.com, tfmorris@gmail.com
Message-ID: <OFCE91A30C.9EDD5C0F-ON88257AF5.00593F70-88257AF5.005B7AAD@kp.org>
Eric et al,
Is there any material on the idea of "design time OWL runtime RDF"? 

Is it Kosher, once you are done with your reasoners, to convert to RDF and 
then treat it as if it were closed world like a database?

RIM which is OO, is of course closed world and can be represented in a 
database. Nothing can change, no new assertions can be made. When an HL7 
message is sent, we assume it can't be changed by a reasoner or anything 
else. It is set in stone. In fact, there are laws. You are not allowed to 
edit a message once it's been sent.

In open world, anyone can add to the triple store at any time, and 
meanings can change. But in an HL7 message, once you make the message, you 
are not allowed to amend or add to it.

On a related note.  We have different ways of expressing negation to Acts. 
Much of the complication comes from whether the negation is done in the 
vocabulary (SNOMED) or the OO part of the model (RIM).
How can we tell if two different representations where the is negation 
expressed on different parts in the model, are semantically the same?

The terminology (SNOMED open world, OK to use reasoners) and the RIM (OO 
closed world) can not be mixed (I think).  But my question is this.
Can you reduce the whole representation of the RIM part of the model and 
the terminology part (SNOMED) into one set of triples, and then could you 
reduce two  instances of the these mixed models to graphs of triplets that 
you can compare? 

If you did reduce/normalize the mixed model of the OO RIM and the EL+ 
logic SNOMED into one set of triples.  Could you consider these, for your 
comparisons, as if they are closed world and simply compare the graph 

This is another way to ask.  At any point in the life of a model (HL7 
message or clinical statement for example), can you just declare "from 
this point forward, no one is allowed to add to or change this graph in 
any way", and then treat the whole graph as if it is closed world, even 
though at an earlier point in the graphs life cycle it did consist of 
SNOMED (open) and RIM (closed)?  Does it become closed by agreement not to 
add to it after it is final?

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.

(image/jpeg attachment: 01-part)

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 16:40:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:59 UTC