W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > April 2008

Re: An argument for bridging information models and ontologies at the syntactic level

From: Dan Russler <dan.russler@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:49:25 -0400
Message-ID: <48077F95.5040200@oracle.com>
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
CC: "Ogbuji, Chimezie" <OGBUJIC@ccf.org>, Dan Corwin <dan@lexikos.com>, "Oniki, Tom (GE Healthcare, consultant)" <Tom.Oniki@ge.com>, Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu>, rector@cs.man.ac.uk, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, public-hcls-coi@w3.org
I agree, Vipul, that individual applications may decide (for reasons of 
performance or retrieval or other implementation specific reasons) to 
separate the notion of action from the notion of result of the action in 
order to reduce the amount of information retrieved.

However, these separations have nothing to do with the nature of the 
information relationships themsleves...Only with how to build an 
application that meets additional constraints, such as speed of performance.


Kashyap, Vipul wrote:

>     Ogbuji, Chimezie wrote:
>>     Dan,
>>     I've very familiar with the SOAP model.  The primary motivation
>>     for my questions about assessment had more to do with
>>     distinguishing an action from data that is derived from it.  This
>>     speaks directly to the problem of the 'anti-pattern' where
>>     ontologies for medical records are built *directly* from models
>>     that were designed with data-level concerns in mind and thus
>>     semantically inconsistent (so called "information models").
>>     The sense of assessment as used in this paper suggests that an
>>     assessment is data (and thus appropriate to consider a
>>     diagnosis), but consider that there are other senses of the word
>>     and one in particular is "the act of judging or assessing a
>>     person or situation or event".  In the latter case, an assessment
>>     refers to the act.  I was simply trying to tease out which of
>>     these Tom had in mind.
>     <danR> It is true that in traditional lab department systems, the
>     'data from the assessment' was modeled separately from the
>     'assessment action.'  This is not exactly "wrong." However, it was
>     noted that one cannot deliver a "numeric result" without restating
>     the action that generated the result, e.g. serum WBC is the action
>     and serum WBC of 10,000 WBcells/ml is the result. In physical
>     sciences, it is considered good practice to always include the
>     methodology of the action when describing the data. Accordingly,
>     it is best practice in the science of healthcare to also report on
>     the nature of the action itself at the same time as reporting on
>     the data derived from the action. 
>     [VK] It may be the case that one can model key properties that can
>     enable the accurate assessment of the action.
>     For instance, one could model things like the property being
>     assessed, who is doing the assessment, the qualifiers of the
>     assessment, etc. 
>     The CEM approack followed by IHC seems to adopt this strategy.
>     From what I can see, there doesn't appear a need to model all the
>     aspects of an action.
>     On the other hand, if there is indeed a need for more contextual
>     information related to the action of performing the assessment, it
>     is probably a good idea to
>     model these two things separately and then link them via
>     approporiate relationships modeling the context, but this likely
>     to happen in an application specific manner.
>     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 Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and
>properly dispose of this information.
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 16:51:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:33 UTC