- From: Kavitha Srinivas <ksrinivs@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:03:31 -0400
- To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
- Cc: <wangxiao@musc.edu>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Andersson, Bo H" <Bo.H.Andersson@astrazeneca.com>, "Landen Bain" <lbain@topsailtech.com>, "Rachel Richesson" <Rachel.Richesson@epi.usf.edu>, "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <public-hcls-dse@w3.org>, "Stanley Huff" <Stan.Huff@intermountainmail.org>, "Yan Heras" <Yan.Heras@intermountainmail.org>, "Oniki, Tom (GE Healthcare, consultant)" <Tom.Oniki@ge.com>, "Joey Coyle" <joey@xcoyle.com>, "Bron W. Kisler" <bkisler@earthlink.net>, "Ida Sim" <sim@medicine.ucsf.edu>
Agree. The assumption is that the user will choose whether it is closed world or open world. The key point that we've observed in terms of our clinical trials matching work using ontologies is that you need BOTH options to be available to correctly translate the exclusion criteria into DL queries. Kavitha Srinivas Research Staff Member, IBM Research. On Sep 12, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote: > > >> You SHOULD not choose and you have to use open world reasoning >> because >> how someone can tell which part of the world is closed and which >> part is >> not. > > [VK] I think this is a good design principle we should consider > when creating a > solution to the use case. > > Open World Assumption + Local Closure Axioma... > > ---Vipul > > > The information transmitted in this electronic communication is > intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and > may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any > action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities > other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received > this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine > at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information. >
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 15:17:44 UTC