Re: COI call Tue 23 Sep agenda, links and logistics -- MINUTES

Notes from today's call are here:
http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-hcls-minutes.html
and also below in plain text.

----------------------------------------------

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                                   HCLS

23 Sep 2014

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-hcls-irc

Attendees

    Present
           +1.415.740.aaaa, +1.978.794.aabb, DBooth, ericP, Tony,
           +1.510.418.aacc, +1.301.825.aadd, +44.792.050.aaee,
           HartC, Ingeborg, +1.310.266.aaff, Claude, Guoqian,
           +1.323.444.aagg, Mehmet, +1.323.444.aahh

    Regrets
    Chair
           EricP

    Scribe
           ericP

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]FDA Therapeutic area wrapup
          2. [5]HL7 meetings and proposed WG on RDF for Semantic
             Interoperability
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <egombocz> aaaa is egombocz

    <dbooth> zakim is doing weird things -- not accepting codes but
    hanging up

    -> [7]http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/0924-FDA_TA-egp/ slides

       [7] http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/0924-FDA_TA-egp/

FDA Therapeutic area wrapup

    <HartC> yes.

    <Marc_AgfaHealthcare> Hi this is Marc (Agfa Healthcare-Belgium)
    joining

    <dbooth> _: Using LOINC or SNOMED CT codes?

    <dbooth> Eric: Will get to that

    <dbooth> Peter: When the RIM first came out, it was based on
    entities and roles particiatping in acts. But groups kept
    adding to it and it got so big that nobody wanted to deal with
    it. hence FHIR. But the basic idea of entities and roles
    participating in acts.

    <dbooth> ... Top of ontology should at least start with
    Entities, Roles, Participations and Actions. Probably also
    Substances and Procedures.

    <dbooth> ... In Protege OWL model, everything is was directly
    under owl:Thing originally.

    <dbooth> Eric: I see data entities under owl:Thing.

    <dbooth> Peter: Yes, that's what I was objecting to. That's why
    I suggested having those other classes directly under
    owl:Thing.

    <dbooth> Peter: Observation is under Act, because it is an act
    of observation.

    <dbooth> ... They're participating in an observation.

    <dbooth> Claude: We're also doing a CDS model on top of FHIR,
    and distinguishh between an act and an observation, which is
    what you observed.

    <dbooth> Eric: The HL7 use case are typically not interested in
    the physiological processes, but more interested in the speech
    acts involved.

    <dbooth> Peter: The actual pathology should be in LOINC or
    SNOMED CT etc.

    <dbooth> Eric: There were pictures that says "a procedure event
    has an act relationship to an observation event".

    <dbooth> Peter: All of the things I saw in the FHIR model could
    have been under one of the 5 main classes.

    <egombocz> agree with Peter strongly

    <Marc_AgfaHealthcare> There are couple of confusing definitions
    regarding the observations/observables and
    acts/activities/procedure. Mainly due to different
    terminologies: SNOMED CT, BRIDG, ETC. Here we need to stick on
    one definition OR mapping

    <dbooth> Peter: BRIDG will be adding those 5 top level classes.

    <dbooth> Claude: In the CDS we're building a more layered ont
    on top of FHIR, which aligns fairly well with the RIM.

    <Marc_AgfaHealthcare> will BRIDG be influenced by SNOMED CT in
    creating those 5 classes?

    <dbooth> ... For CDS we need to be able to have core concepts
    for FHIR. I could present what we've done so far, for feedback.

    <dbooth> Peter: I'm no longer defending that it has to be the
    RIM, because the RIM is too heavy to survive.

    <dbooth> ... But they can use the basic notions of Entities and
    Roles participating in Acts.

    <dbooth> Claude: Could you map RIM to BRIDG to the same effect?

    <dbooth> Peter: You can give me any one thing and I can tell
    you which of the 5 classes is belongs in.

    -> [8]http://www.bridgmodel.org/owl/3.2 bridgmodel3.2.owl

       [8] http://www.bridgmodel.org/owl/3.2

    <dbooth> Peter: Ont for RIM is big. They took a given subclass
    of Act and made lists of codes that were legitimate for the
    slots and put them all in.

    <dbooth> ... Lloyd put thousands of vocabulary terms.

    <dbooth> Marc asks: ill BRIDG be influenced by SNOMED CT in
    creating those 5 classes?

    <dbooth> Peter: No, SNOMED CT does not talk about them at all.

    <dbooth> ... They touch each other but they are not mixed up.

    <Marc_AgfaHealthcare> Then it will be somehow in line with RIM?

    <dbooth> (back to EricP slide 7)

    <dbooth> slide 9

    <dbooth>
    [9]http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/0924-FDA_TA-egp/#%289%29

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/0924-FDA_TA-egp/#%289%29

    <dbooth> DBooth: Is Organizer class good or bad?

    <dbooth> EricP: Seems necessary for organizing.

    <dbooth> Guoqian: Is this ont available somewhere?

    <dbooth> Eric: It's linked at the front of the slides

    <dbooth> Guoqian: Nice how you're handling the BRIDG
    complexity. How do you capture the domain expertise from domain
    experts?

    ->
    [10]http://www.w3.org/2013/12/FDA-TA/doc/RenalTransplantation-c
    map.html Rtrans cmap

      [10] 
http://www.w3.org/2013/12/FDA-TA/doc/RenalTransplantation-cmap.html

    <dbooth> Eric: This CMAP links into BioPortal

    <dbooth> Eric: We make a CMAP with the domain expert and then
    turn it into an ont.

    <dbooth> ... I hacked the CMAP SVG to add the links to
    BioPortal, after exporting the SVG.

    <dbooth> Guoqian: BRIDG is so complex. How do you make the
    domain experts understand it?

    <dbooth> Eric: We used a part of BRIDG

    <dbooth> Guoqian: Any connection between this work and CIMI?

    <dbooth> Eric: No, and that's unfortunate.

    <dbooth> ... But Harold Solbrig is working on modeling CIMI
    using Shape Expressions.

    <dbooth> Peter: I don't find CIMI reference model very useful
    because it has classes like Item, Collection, Element, etc.,
    which are like boxes within boxes.

    <dbooth> ... The names of the classes don't have much meaning
    associated.

    <dbooth> Guoqian: The advantage to use CIMI is that if other
    models like FHIR, SNOMED CT, etc. were in CIMI that we could
    related different models.

    <dbooth> Peter: I don't see that you gain anything. Much better
    off putting them in the 5 backbone classes.

HL7 meetings and proposed WG on RDF for Semantic Interoperability

    <scribe> scribenick: ericP

    claude nanjo and i attended

    <dbooth> I spoke to: Grahame Grieve, FHIR architect

    <dbooth> Charlie McKay

    <dbooth> Cecil Lynch

    <dbooth> Paul Knapp

    <dbooth> Woody Beeler

    <dbooth> Bernd Blobel

    <dbooth> Ken McCaslin

    <dbooth> John Quinn

    dbooth: claude nanjo and i attended

    <dbooth> Charter draft:
    [11]http://dbooth.org/2014/hl7/rdf-semantic-interop-wg-v7.doc

      [11] http://dbooth.org/2014/hl7/rdf-semantic-interop-wg-v7.doc

    dbooth: i flew out to talk about starting the HL7 RDF for
    Semantic Interoperability WG
    ... we prepared a few slides.

    <egombocz> need to leave, thank you

    <HartC> sorry, got to go.

    <dbooth> ITS work group:
    [12]http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/xml/overview.cfm

      [12] http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/xml/overview.cfm

    <dbooth> AID work group:
    [13]http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/java/overview.cfm

      [13] http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/java/overview.cfm

    <dbooth> Peter: When you're doing things at HL7, are you
    thinking of using RDF as data stores? Vs to communicate between
    black boxes? Or as a way to define models?

    <dbooth> Peter: RDF triples don't stand by themselves. They
    need the definitions, which are about the modeling.

    <dbooth> ... There is interest in doing the modeling in RDF and
    OWL.

    <dbooth> ... In Kaiser we have K-Con. We start with OWL and
    underneath it using Protege and OWL we come up with everything
    that would be needed to assess that disease.

    <dbooth> Peter: RDF Fox sits on top of triplestore -- a fast
    OWL RL reasoner from Ian Horrock's group.

    <dbooth> ... Take a FHIR resource, start with OWL ontology with
    5 upper classes, fill out the OWL ont first of what the model
    should look like, then figure out how to parse FHIR into that.

    <dbooth> ... You (David) could present this proposal at our
    committee.

    <dbooth> [14]http://dbooth.org/2014/hl7/rdf-for-interop.pdf

      [14] http://dbooth.org/2014/hl7/rdf-for-interop.pdf

    <dbooth> Claude: More support for having this effort be a part
    of the ITS group than a separate WG.

    <dbooth> ... This would have cross-cutting concerns, connecting
    to a number of WGs. One of the big goals also is to bridge W3C
    and HL7 communities.

    <dbooth> ... If we were to go forward as a subgroup, which WG
    would make most sense? The people that we spoke to at HL7
    thought ITS. What do you (peter) see as pros/cons of AID group?

    <dbooth> Peter: Our group started as the Java SIG, when the RIM
    was new.

    <dbooth> ... Gunther was my co-chair, and he was main author of
    RIM.

    <dbooth> ... Format could create Java classes from the RIM. But
    people said they used other languages. So we changed our name
    to RIMBA.

    <dbooth> ... so you can use it for generating tables, etc. too.
    You can take CDA messages, parse them into RIM and put them
    out.

    <dbooth> ... Then FHIR came along. Others in HL7 make the
    stnadards, and we use them, so we changed our name again.

    <dbooth> ... If it's "how do you do X" then it's our group. If
    it's how to serialize in XML, then it's ITS.

    <dbooth> ... If it's "how to think about things in a different
    way" then it's our group. If it's "how to make the syntax so
    that everyone agrees" then it's ITS.

    <dbooth> David: Does AID have regular teleconferences?

    <dbooth> Peter: No. When we meet we have pre-invited people to
    present their approaches.

    <dbooth> ... No weekly meetings.

    <drjava> wiki.hl7.org

    <dbooth> ACTION: David to try to schedule a presentation to ITS
    and AID HL7 WGs to discuss the proposed "RDF for Semantic
    Interoperability" WG. [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-hcls-minutes.html#action01]

    <dbooth> ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: David to try to schedule a presentation to ITS
    and AID HL7 WGs to discuss the proposed "RDF for Semantic
    Interoperability" WG. [recorded in
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-hcls-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
     1.138 ([18]CVS log)
     $Date: 2014-09-23 17:01:20 $
      __________________________________________________________

      [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11
Check for newer version at [19]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/

      [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Quo/Guo/
Succeeded: s/This/This CMAP/
Succeeded: s/HL7 meetings/HL7 meetings and proposed WG on RDF for Semant
ic Interoperability/
Found ScribeNick: ericP
Inferring Scribes: ericP
Default Present: +1.415.740.aaaa, +1.978.794.aabb, DBooth, ericP, Tony,
+1.510.418.aacc, +1.301.825.aadd, +44.792.050.aaee, HartC, Ingeborg, +1.
310.266.aaff, Claude, Guoqian, +1.323.444.aagg, Mehmet, +1.323.444.aahh
Present: +1.415.740.aaaa +1.978.794.aabb DBooth ericP Tony +1.510.418.aa
cc +1.301.825.aadd +44.792.050.aaee HartC Ingeborg +1.310.266.aaff Claud
e Guoqian +1.323.444.aagg Mehmet +1.323.444.aahh
Got date from IRC log name: 23 Sep 2014
Guessing minutes URL: [20]http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-hcls-minutes.html
People with action items: david

      [20] http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-hcls-minutes.html


    [End of [21]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

      [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 01:16:59 UTC