- From: <helen.chen@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:15:30 -0400
- To: sam.brandt@siemens.com
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF28CBBF44.04EE6465-ON85257187.0051C10D-85257187.005ECE08@agfa.com>
Hi, Sam
During our ACPP meeting, you mentioned Alan Rector's remark on "modelling
of belief" and "modelling of use". I checked Alan's homepage, but didn't
find a paper (at least from the title) on this topic. If you have a
pointer from Alan or someone else, can you please share with us?
During my searching, I came across this article " Clinical Guidelines as
Plans: An Ontological Theory" [1] by Kumar et al. The ideas presented in
this article echo a part of what we are trying to achieve here. I have
the following points to add:
1. Need more relationship than classification
"Ontology of plans" containing classification of tasks, roles and
parameters of a plan is an important part of explicit medical knowledge.
However, not all medical knowledge and plan execution constraints can be
expressed via classification. Mereology relationship is also an important
part of medical knowledge. We will also need to identify some unique
properties in modelling Adaptable clinical protocols pathways, for
example, hasExpectedOutcome, hasMedicalGoal (intentions). RDF and OWL
have equipped us to express those relationships.
2. Need rules and policies
We will need to use rules, and even proof in this area. The rules can be
grouped according to their purposes and domain. For example, in the
stroke management protocol test case, we will need rules to handle:
- How to selected tasks for a patient with one or more clinical
problems. It could be via matching the patient state or a process state
with the initialCondition described for a task
3. Different layers of knowledge and rules
We could further add different types or layers of rules to accomplish
tasks such as
- How to validate the prescription to avoid adverse efforts when
different tasks/drugs are recommended for the patient
- How to optimize resource allocation, maybe to turn on resource
constraint rules when querying for tasks of a plan
4. Need a HL7 RIM Ontology?
As illustrated in the stroke management test case [2], we will need to
describe tasks (act) and their attribute, participating entities and their
roles. HL7 RIM, vocabulary and various schemas provided a significant
knowledge base for describing concepts and relationships in Healthcare
domain. We really should try to use HL7 terms as much as possible in our
ACPP model. As you are also activity participating in HL7, maybe we can
discuss if the HCLS group is a good place to have a HL7 RIM Owl ontology -
we might need to take a close look of HL7 concepts and their semantics. I
doubt an owl file that is directly translated from HL:7 UML diagrams and
xsd files will be suitable for semantic web
I hope others on the HCLS list can shed some light or share their
experiences on this subject as we move forward.
Helen
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/hchen
[1] http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/Clinical_Guidelines_as_Plans.pdf
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HclsigDscussionTopics/HclsSubGroupACPP/Stroke
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:16:10 UTC