W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Versioning vs Temporal modeling of Patient State

From: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:49:16 -0500
Message-Id: <1A64500D-92D2-48DC-91F4-0F3247D5FE23@DrexelMed.edu>
Cc: "Nigam Haresh Shah" <nigam@stanford.edu>, "Trish Whetzel" <whetzel@pcbi.upenn.edu>, "kc28" <kei.cheung@yale.edu>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "w3c semweb hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
This brings up an additional aspect of the versioning problem.

I'm pretty certain the nature, granularity, and meaning of versioning  
will differ between the TBox and the ABox - at least that's my sense  
of things and the way we've been proceeding on BIRNLex.  What I mean  
by that is I have a pretty good sense of what an appropriate  
versioning policy is for the TBox.  In our work on BIRNLex - and even  
more so in the work the OBI group has been doing, as well as work  
from the GO Consortium and the NCI Thesaurus - an effort to define a  
set of AnnotationProperties to handle versioning in the TBox is being  
assembled and put to use.

I'm not at all certain what versioning means in the ABox apart from  
the sort of versioning one would apply to all identified resources  
such as that provided via LSID, which as we all know here has its  
pros and cons.

Just my $0.02 on this issue.

Cheers,
Bill

On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:

>
>
> Nigam,
>
> This is an interesting example...
>
>> Have an example for this one: If the instance is of a the class  
>> "Tumor"
>> then
>> on giving treatment it changes in size, shape etc, and might  
>> ultimately
>> disappear. On each visit we are observing a different version of  
>> the tumor
>> instance [in Tom].
>
> [VK] Clearly there is a longitudinal aspect to this as the state of  
> the tumor
> changes over time....
>
> This could be modeled in two ways:
>
> Tumor1.state = X at time T1
> Tumor1.state = Y at time T2
> ...
> Tumor1.state = "Non-existent" at time Tn
>
> Essentially you are modeling state as a multivalued property or as  
> a ternary
> relationship (Tumor, state, Time)
>
> Alternatively,
>
> Tumor1, v1.state = X
> Tumor1, v2.state = Y
> ...
> Tumor1, vN.state = "Non-existent"
>
>
> IMHO, the former representation conveys more information and  
> meaning...
> So, it may make sense not to confound versioning with temporal  
> progression...
>
> Look forward to the commounities thoughts on the issue.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ---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 SENDER AND THE  
> PRIVACY OFFICER, AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF THIS INFORMATION.
>
>
>

Bill Bug
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer

Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
www.neuroterrain.org
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA    19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)


Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu





Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 21:49:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:21 UTC