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

I believe Lloyd is onto something critical. 
I view this approach as the critical bridge between traditional highly 
specified ontologies and schemas to more open metadata-based self-defining 
schemas in the world of big data.  I believe further that Darwinian forces 
will select those highly specified ontologies and schemas that 
'anticipate' the need for bi-directional bridges between them and 
less-specified schemas in emerging landing zones (aka data lakes).  I 
suspect that the critical aspect of these 'bridges by design' will be to 
ensure that the top tear of the highly specified world is generalized 
enough and validated enough to be relatively uncontroversial and 
unconstrained so that 'mapping' or 'harmonizing' with a landing zone is as 
close to effortless as possible.  The extent to which the specified use 
cases that drive the highly specified ontologies and schemas are revealed 
only in the deeper layers of any ontology will represent the Darwinian 
fitness of that ontology or schema to survive over time.
john


John Mattison, MD
Assistant Medical Director
Chief Medical Information Officer
Kaiser Permanente, SCAL
cell 818-321-6004



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:   Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>
To:     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>
Date:   02/06/2015 08:30 PM
Subject:        Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology 
Requirements
Sent by:        owner-its@lists.hl7.org



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
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


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

Manage your subscriptions | View the archives | Unsubscribe | Terms of use