RE: HCLS Agenda Thursday (tomorrow): Roadmap on RDF for Healthcare Information Interoperability (Yosemite Project)

I agree with your contention – but as of today claims is a more comprehensive and easily available source as compared to EMR data.

 

The thinking is that we may be able to make better progress with both types of data (EMR and claims) as opposed to just EMR data alone.

 

---Vipul

 

From: Michael Miller [mailto:Michael.Miller@systemsbiology.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:03 PM
To: Vipul Kashyap
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; Peter.Hendler@kp.org; david@dbooth.org
Subject: RE: HCLS Agenda Thursday (tomorrow): Roadmap on RDF for Healthcare Information Interoperability (Yosemite Project)

 

hi vipul,

 

(just got back from vacation, hence late reply)

 

i agree that it is good to include claims data but the caveat with using the claims data is that its criteria is for the health care provider to get paid, not to accurately describe the condition of the patient.

 

cheers,

michael

 

Michael Miller

Software Engineer

Institute for Systems Biology

 

 

From: Vipul Kashyap [mailto:kashyap.vipul@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:24 PM
To: Peter.Hendler@kp.org; david@dbooth.org
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; kashyap.vipul@gmail.com
Subject: RE: HCLS Agenda Thursday (tomorrow): Roadmap on RDF for Healthcare Information Interoperability (Yosemite Project)

 

Hi Peter,

 

Is it possible for us to get more information on this? A write up, a paper or something?

 

An interesting point to note – is that Claims/Administrative Billing Data is an important data source for HEDIS metrics and reports.

Is your system based on EMR data or claims data?

 

The reason I bring this up is that it might be important for the RDF representation to also capture Claims data (which is a much more common data source than EMR Data

for analytics as of now, though with more EMR penetration, this might change). In that case the  top ontology levels are likely to be different and different from the HL7 model.

 

Thanks!

 

---Vipul

 

From: Peter.Hendler@kp.org [mailto:Peter.Hendler@kp.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:03 PM
To: david@dbooth.org
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: HCLS Agenda Thursday (tomorrow): Roadmap on RDF for Healthcare Information Interoperability (Yosemite Project)

 

We (Kaiser) are working with Ian Horrock's group at Oxford on a project for automating HEDIS reports using RDFox. 
RDFox is a novel kind of RDF store that can use OWL-RL and Datalog and can do massively parallel processing. 

For the RDF models, I really hope they are not so ad hoc, but that they follow the HL7 V3 backbone idea of starting top ontology levels with 
Entities Roles participations and Acts.  It is key to have this for all of the models to be HL7 compatible.  If the RDF healthcare models start with this level, then they will be compatible with HL7 V2 and CDA etc. 




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.




From:        David Booth <david@dbooth.org> 
To:        w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org> 
Date:        09/10/2014 08:43 AM 
Subject:        Re: HCLS Agenda Thursday (tomorrow): Roadmap on RDF for Healthcare  Information Interoperability (Yosemite Project) 

  _____  




P.S. If anyone is interested but cannot make this call tomorrow, please 
let me know by email, so that we can follow up separately.  I still want 
your input!

On 09/10/2014 11:36 AM, David Booth wrote:
> Agenda Thursday (tomorrow):
>
> 1. Yosemite Project: A Roadmap for Healthcare Information
> Interoperability, based on RDF as a universal information exchange
> language.  These slides were presented at the Semantic Technology and
> Business Conference in August, and a draft version was discussed on a
> previous HCLS call.  This will be a rapid review, followed by
> solicitation of comments/suggestions: Is this roadmap correct?
> Complete?  How might it be better described?  Slides:
>  <http://dbooth.org/2014/yosemite/yosemite-project-slides.pdf> http://dbooth.org/2014/yosemite/yosemite-project-slides.pdf
>
> 2. Discuss potential collaboration and funding strategies for the
> Yosemite Project roadmap.
>
>  > Thursdays, 11:00am Eastern US (Boston) time zone
>  > Zakim (W3C teleconference bridge).
>  > Dial-In #: _+1.617.761.6200_ <tel:%2B1.617.761.6200> (Cambridge, MA)
>  > VoIP address: _sip:zakim@voip.w3.org_
>  > Participant Access Code: 4257 ("HCLS")
>  > IRC: _irc.w3.org_ < <http://irc.w3.org/> http://irc.w3.org/> port 6665 channel #HCLS
>
> Thanks,
> David