- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:38:15 -0500
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 15:12 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > > Chime, > > > > You mentioned clinical research data in our 1st meeting. > > > > I suspect that's an interesting XML Schema (or plain XML?) use case. > > > > Do you have any details you can share? > > Yes, absolutely. Actually this is the primary motivation for joining the > GRDDL WG. We have been developing a clinical research data management > system which uses XML as the 'main' representation format (organized > around a patient record), edits the XML remotely (on a variety of devices) > via XForms, submits the XML document (via HTTP PUT to a unique URI for > each such record) to a server which (as part of the content management > services) transforms the XML to an RDF equivalent graph for persistence. > > Ofcouse, the expense of dual representation is space, but the primary > value is being able to query both as XML and as RDF (the latter being > more amenable for investigative question that rely on alot more > interpretation than a structured format such as XML will provide). > > A GRDDL approach could eleviate this expense by allowing a patient record (or any XML-based > collection of clinical research data) to be queried semantically (via > SPARQL) 'on demand' by associating a GRDDL profile to the specific patient > record XML vocabulary. A figure of this "before GRDDL" and "with GRDDL" ways of working would be particularly nice. > Imagine a fellow assigned to determine a search criteria to identify a > patient population for a particular study. He might have a set of > classifications specific to the study he could express as logical rules > (N3 rules). Then, he could write a client (that understood > GRDDL) that speculatively picked a few patient records at random from a > remote server (as XML documents) each of which would be associated (by GRDDL > profile) to a transform to extract the clinical data as RDF (expressed in > a universally supported vocabulary for CPR - such as the HL7 OWL ontology > that Helen Chen from Agfa has been working on) and ask his > speculative questions of the resulting RDF graph. > > Or (to take the scenario a step further), apply the study specific rules > on the resulting RDF to classify the patient data according to his domain > of interest (specific diagnoses, pathological observations, etc..) Bingo. That use case (1) is likely to be of interest to the healthcare/lifesci audience and (2) motivates the use of GRDDL with XML vocabularies Fabien, Danny, care to roll it in? I'm tempted to do it myself... but I took an action to set up access for Fabien. I think WebDAV might work out better for all concerned than direct CVS/ssh access. Let's see... from the WG homepage http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/ to the Art of Consensus Guide to the WebDAV docs http://www.w3.org/Guide/Jigedit/Webdav Ah... I reached danny in #swig... http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-08-17#T19-34-22 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 17 August 2006 19:39:50 UTC