W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Extension of the schema.org medical vocabulary

From: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:40:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CACfEFw8Oi5s9CB9XMzFK1OQzhRVVD=9gj_MJ0UuMU4ktV8epGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcus Nitzschke <marcus.nitzschke@gmx.com>
Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
... http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literal-Equality
On Jul 18, 2013 10:55 PM, "Wes Turner" <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:

> > At our work group we actively use the schema.org medical vocabulary for
> > modeling a health information system. However, we find that there are
> some entities that seem to be described very rudimentary. E.g. the drug
> class models the 'activeIngredient', 'administrationRoute' or 'dosageForm'
> simply as text, which doesn't provide much "semantic information".
>
> I assume you are referring to http://schema.org/Drug .
>
> * Are you suggesting that the range should be Text OR URL for these
> properties?
>
> * Or, are you suggesting that there should be additional,
> ontology-specific attributes for linking into more comprehensive
> pharmacodynamic ontologies?
>
> There are many shared ontologies indexed at
> http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies . Specifically, RxNorm may
> cover your use case:
>
> * http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/1423
> *
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/rxnorm/docs/2013/rxnorm_doco_full_2013-2.html
>
> It appears that the latest version of RxNorm is not yet uploaded to
> BioPortal.
>
> > We also would like to propose a tighter coupling of Services/Business
> and Medical Entities. Currently we implement these things in our own
> ontologies which you will find here [1] bit by bit.
> >
> > My first question is now: Is there a broader interest/demand in
> > improving this part of the vocabulary or are we the only ones with this
> opinion?
>
> From http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html :
>
> >  Our approach is intended to be a framework for tagging known or novel
> medical concepts/entities, and optionally their relationships, as they
> appear in freeform text on the web. To manage scope, we have focused on
> markup that will help in use cases such as patients, physicians, and
> generally health-interested consumers searching for relevant health
> information. It is explicitly not our goal to replace existing ontology
> systems or to enumerate instances of medical entities, though our schema
> can link to and take advantage of existing ontologies and enumerations. It
> is also explicitly not a goal to support automated reasoning, medical
> records coding, or genomic tagging, all of which would require
> substantially more detailed (and hence high barrier-to-entry) modeling and
> markup.
>
> > And second: Is there any ongoing collaboration at the moment towards
> > improving the medical vocabulary or should we just start a new proposal
> > at the wiki?
>
> From http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html :
>
> > This initiative grew from a collaborative project that drew upon search
> expertise from the schema.org partners but also gained immeasurably
> through feedback from expert reviewers including the US NCBI; physicians at
> Harvard, Duke, and other institutions, as well as from several health Web
> sites. Contributions from the W3C Healthcare and Lifesciences group and Web
> Schemas community also helped bridge the complex worlds of Web standards,
> search and medicine/healthcare.
>
Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 05:41:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:28 UTC