- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:18:37 -0500
- To: Lloyd McKenzie <lloyd@lmckenzie.com>, Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>
- CC: Robert Hausam <rrhausam@gmail.com>, Sajjad Hussain <hussain@cs.dal.ca>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "its@lists.hl7.org" <its@lists.hl7.org>
Okay, I've added another option: [[ Option F: '''(MUST)''' The FHIR ontology must support inference, both in use cases based on the open world assumption and in use cases based on the closed world assumption.<br> ]] David On 02/09/2015 02:44 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote: > Well, interoperability is defined by the base specification, not by any > particular technology representation (schema, schematron, OWL, etc.) > What really matters for interoperability is the RDF format, not the > OWL. We have two use-cases for the OWL representation - instance > validation and reasoning. The first requires closed world. The latter > could use open or closed world depending on the type of reasoning desired. > > I'm ok with asserting SHALL for both. I think both are doable and both > are useful, so we may as well get them both done. > > *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 Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com > <mailto:amallia@edmondsci.com>> wrote: > > David, > I believe this question brings into play the definition of > interoperability. > With current technology it seems that we can get interoperability > only with a closed world assumption. It all depends on the > definition of interoperability (which has not been formally defined) > but the expectation is that the structure and semantics of an > exchange are understood computationally at run time. > > I would invert Option C to MUST for closed and MAY for open. Or we > can choose another option. > > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org <mailto:david@dbooth.org>] > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 1:50 PM > To: Lloyd McKenzie; Robert Hausam > Cc: Anthony Mallia; Sajjad Hussain; w3c semweb HCLS; > its@lists.hl7.org <mailto:its@lists.hl7.org> > Subject: Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology > Requirements > > I have listed the proposed wordings for requirement #11 that I have > seen so far: > http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#11._Enable_Inference > [[ > #11. Enable Inference > Option A: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference. > Option B: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference > with monotonicity and open world assumption. > Option C: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference > under the open world assumption. However, some uses of the ontology > may require use of the closed world assumption. > Option D: (SHOULD) The FHIR ontology should allow expressions > enforcing both closed world and open-world reasoning against instances. > Option E: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must allow expressions enforcing > either closed world or open-world reasoning against instances. > Option F: Drop this requirement > ]] > > This includes option C that I just added. > > If anyone has any other suggested wording changes for this or any > other requirement, please propose them now so that we can finalize > them on tomorrow's teleconference. > > Thanks, > David > > On 02/07/2015 03:00 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > It was working just fine for minimum cardinality. If you have a rule > > that says "must have at least one" and your instances says "I'm a > > subclass of the things that have exactly zero", the validator will > > detect the error. And we can do that because we know exactly what > > elements can potentially be allowed and can thus assert what has a > > cardinality of zero if they're missing from the instance. > > > > *Lloyd McKenzie > > *Consultant, Information Technology Services Gevity Consulting Inc. > > > > E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com> > <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com>> > > M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:%2B1%20587-334-1110> <tel:1-587-334-1110 > <tel:1-587-334-1110>> > > W: gevityinc.com <http://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 Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Robert Hausam > <rrhausam@gmail.com <mailto:rrhausam@gmail.com> > > <mailto:rrhausam@gmail.com <mailto:rrhausam@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > > Lloyd, that's certainly correct with the "upper bound", given the > > conditions that you describe. If an instance has 5 of > "something" > > when it's declared that it should have 4, then the reasoner can > > clearly determine that the instance is invalid. However, > using OWA, > > you can't do this for the "lower bound" of cardinality, as there > > always may be another "something" out there that the reasoner > is not > > aware of. I'm sure that we all know all of this, but it > definitely > > makes validating integrity constraints using pure OWL in many > cases > > either difficult or impossible. > > > > I've found this discussion of the issue from Clark&Parsia to > be useful: > > > > http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/icv/ > > > > This is obviously referring to a proprietary solution (their > Pellet > > reasoner and the ICV extension), and certainly there are other > > techniques and options available. But I think this does > frame the > > issue and some potential solutions for it pretty well. > > > > So, getting back to the ontology requirements, I think we clearly > > will need to be able to use *both* the open and closed world > > assumptions, so maybe we should say that we *MUST* be able to do > > both? - something like: > > > > MUST: OWL ontology will allow expressions enforcing either closed > > world or open-world reasoning against instances. > > > > Rob > > > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Lloyd McKenzie > <lloyd@lmckenzie.com <mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com> > > <mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com <mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com>>> wrote: > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > If you declare an instance has 4 of something, that those > > instances are disjoint and that the instance is a subclass of > > those instances that allow only 3 of something, the reasoner > > *should* declare the instance invalid. Certainly I was > able to > > get that happening w/ Protege when I used that approach > with the > > RIM. > > > > > > Lloyd > > > > *Lloyd McKenzie > > *Consultant, Information Technology Services > > Gevity Consulting Inc. > > > > E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com > <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com> <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com > <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com>> > > M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:%2B1%20587-334-1110> > <tel:1-587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>> > > W: gevityinc.com <http://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 Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Anthony Mallia > > <amallia@edmondsci.com <mailto:amallia@edmondsci.com> > <mailto:amallia@edmondsci.com <mailto:amallia@edmondsci.com>>> wrote: > > > > Lloyd,____ > > > > This is the pattern that is used by TopQuadrant in > its XSD > > to OWL conversion and the FHIR generation was shared by > > Cecil. The advantage of this mechanism is that all > > subclasses of Patient also are subclasses of the > Anonymous > > Ancestor which is the Class Expression > “hasPhoneNumber max 3 > > PhoneNumber”.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Having done that however the reasoned does not > invalidate if > > there are 4 phone numbers (i.e. Open World).____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Tony____ > > > > __ __ > > > > *From:*Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com > <mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com> > > <mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com > <mailto:lloyd@lmckenzie.com>>] > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 07, 2015 10:48 AM > > *To:* Sajjad Hussain > > *Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; its@lists.hl7.org > <mailto:its@lists.hl7.org> > > <mailto:its@lists.hl7.org <mailto:its@lists.hl7.org>> > > *Subject:* Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR > > Ontology Requirements____ > > > > __ __ > > > > 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 > <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com> <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com > <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com>> > > M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:%2B1%20587-334-1110> > <tel:1-587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>> > > W: gevityinc.com <http://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 10:00 PM, Sajjad Hussain > > <hussain@cs.dal.ca <mailto:hussain@cs.dal.ca> > <mailto:hussain@cs.dal.ca <mailto: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/#StructureOfOntologie > > s > > > > 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> <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com > <mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com>> > > M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:%2B1%20587-334-1110> > <tel:1-587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>> > > W: gevityinc.com <http://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> > <mailto: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____ > > > > __ __ > > > > __ __ > > > > __ __ > > > > > > > *********************************************************************************** > > Manage your subscriptions <http://www.HL7.org/listservice> | > > View the archives <http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its> | > > Unsubscribe > > > <http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=rrhausam@gmail.com&list=its> > > | Terms of use > > > > <http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Robert Hausam, MD > > Hausam Consulting LLC > > +1 (801) 949-1556 <tel:%2B1%20%28801%29%20949-1556> > <tel:%2B1%20%28801%29%20949-1556> > > rrhausam@gmail.com <mailto:rrhausam@gmail.com> > <mailto:rrhausam@gmail.com <mailto:rrhausam@gmail.com>> > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 20:19:13 UTC