W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2015

Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

From: Sajjad Hussain <hussain@cs.dal.ca>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 00:00:43 -0500
Message-ID: <54D59BFB.9070400@cs.dal.ca>
To: Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: Sajjad Hussain <hussain@cs.dal.ca>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.hl7.org>
I agree with Lloyd. However, we need to keep in mind that semantic web 
standard languages especially OWL rely on Open World Assumption (OWA):

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#StructureOfOntologies

For validation purposes, while respecting OWA, it is still possible 
validate data based on " Scoped Negation as Failure":

https://ai.wu.ac.at/~polleres/publications/poll-etal-2006b.pdf

Best,
Sajjad

******************************************

On 2/6/15 11:29 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
> I expect we'll need to be able to handle both open-world and 
> closed-world versions of the ontology. Closed-world is essential to 
> validation.  If a profile says something is 1..1 and the instance 
> doesn't have it, then that needs to be flagged as an error, which 
> open-world wouldn't do. On the other hand, reasoners may well need to 
> operate with some degree of open-world.  The fact something isn't 
> present in the EHR doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.  I'd be 
> happy for us to include something like this:
>
> SHOULD: OWL ontology should allow expressions enforcing both closed 
> world and open-world reasoning against instances.
>
> *Lloyd McKenzie
> *Consultant, Information Technology Services
> Gevity Consulting Inc.
>
> E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com>
> M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>
> W: gevityinc.com <http://gevityinc.com/>
>
> *GEVITY
> **/Informatics for a healthier world /*
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the 
> exclusive use of its intended recipients. If you have received this 
> communication by error, please notify the sender and delete the 
> message without copying or disclosing it*.*
>
> NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions 
> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my 
> employer, my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance 
> positions
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:20 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org 
> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Sajjad,
>
>     On 02/04/2015 07:12 AM, Sajjad Hussain wrote:
>
>         Hi All,
>
>         Responding to Action # 2 carried during last call:
>
>         http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02
>         <http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02>
>
>         I would suggest the following wording for FHIR Ontology
>         Requirement # 11
>         (http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#11._Enable_Inference
>         <http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements>)
>
>         11. Enable Inference
>         (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference with
>         monotonicity and open world assumption [1]
>         [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/presentations/OWA.pdf
>         <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/presentations/OWA.pdf>
>         <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/presentations/OWA.pdf>
>
>
>     I would expect the closed world assumption to be used quite a lot
>     to  in data validation and perhaps other ways, so I would be
>     uncomfortable having that as a MUST requirement.
>
>     David Booth
>
>         Best regards,
>         Sajjad
>
>         ***************************************************
>
>         On 2/3/15 10:45 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
>             On today's call we almost finished working out our FHIR
>             ontology
>             requirements.  Only two points remain to be resolved:
>             http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements
>
>               - Sajjad suggested that the wording of requirement #11
>             be changed to
>             be clearer, and agreed to suggest new wording. Current
>             wording:
>             "Enable Inference: The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS
>             inference."
>
>              - Paul Knapp noted that requirement #16 is related to
>             requirement #2,
>             and suggested that they might be merged.
>
>             We did not get to other agenda today.
>
>             The full meeting log is here:
>             http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html
>
>             Thanks!
>             David Booth
>
>
>
>
>     ***********************************************************************************
>     Manage subscriptions - http://www.HL7.org/listservice
>     View archives - http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its
>     Unsubscribe -
>     http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=lloyd@lmckenzie.com&list=its
>     Terms of use -
>     http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules
>
>
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 05:01:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 7 February 2015 05:01:44 UTC