- From: Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 08:42:14 -0700
- To: Sajjad Hussain <hussain@cs.dal.ca>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.hl7.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ860JLqk0oqOsgamXeodyud4rKzBGyu7ch0KB2y9zSR=w2H_A@mail.gmail.com>
You can also close the world declaritively. If I have a Patient with 3 phone numbers, the instance can declare it's a subclass of Patients with an upper bound of 3 on the number of phone numbers. You can do similar things for the vocabulary. It's verbose, but it works. *Lloyd McKenzie*Consultant, Information Technology Services Gevity Consulting Inc. E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com M: +1 587-334-1110 <1-587-334-1110> W: 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 10:00 PM, Sajjad Hussain <hussain@cs.dal.ca> wrote: > 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 > M: +1 587-334-1110 <1-587-334-1110> > W: 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> 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> >>> >> >> 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 15:43:06 UTC