- From: Dan Russler <dan.russler@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:42:10 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>, Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, public-hcls-coi@w3.org, Elkin.Peter@MAYO.EDU
- Message-ID: <48109C42.6030900@oracle.com>
Agreed...Peter already got us to change....Of course, I thought more people would confuse the term with "first order reaction" or "first order kinetics" than with "first order logic." Dan Pat Hayes wrote: > At 10:46 AM -0400 4/21/08, Dan Russler wrote: > >> Peter and Vipul...See below...dan >> >> Kashyap, Vipul wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >>> IMHO, codes don't represent classes in some information model. >>> An information model has classes like Observation, whose >>> instances are clinical statements made by some entity (person or >>> machine). I think information model is "meta" in the sense that >>> its instances are statements >>> [VK] This the reason I think theHL7 is a meta-model rather than >>> an Information Model. Of course this depends on the viewpoint >>> you take and the information architecture you adopt. >>> >> <dan> With apologies to Peter in case I misrepresented your SOA >> presentation...Last week, Peter Elkin of Mayo Clinic delivered a >> presentation where he called the HL7 RIM a "first order ontology" >> because of the abstraction level of the RIM. He called the models >> derived from the RIM, e.g. analytic models, patient care document >> models like CDA, etc, "second order ontology" because they add a >> layer of concreteness to the abstractions of the RIM, i.e. an object >> with classCode of observation and moodCode of order becomes an >> "observation order object" with neither a classCode nor a moodCode. >> Finally, the coding systems themselves support the concreteness of a >> "third order ontology." For example, the SNOMED concept becomes an >> object itself without a code attribute, moodCode attribute, or >> classCode attribute, e.g. a WBC order. /> > > > > AAArgh, can I plead that we do NOT use this terminology in this way? > The "first/second/higher-order" terminology already has a firmly > established and very precise use to refer to types of logic, and hence > of ontology languages. Just don't say 'order'. Use some other word, > please. Thanks. > > Pat Hayes > > >-- > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell > http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us > http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections >
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 14:44:06 UTC