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

Re: Versioning vs Temporal modeling of Patient State

From: Trish Whetzel <whetzel@pcbi.upenn.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:58:02 -0500 (EST)
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
cc: Nigam Haresh Shah <nigam@stanford.edu>, kc28 <kei.cheung@yale.edu>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0701111651110.25290@hera.pcbi.upenn.edu>

>> 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...
Yes, I agree. It seems as though the various states of the tumor can 
exist, but whether they are the same state over time is a different 
question. It is not as though the state 'non-existent' is replaced with 
another state with a new name, at least that is how I am thinking of 
versioning. The instance data to describe the state of the tumor is 
different based on some action, e.g. passing of time.

Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 21:58:12 UTC

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