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

RE: Multi-layered Knowledge Representations for Healthcare (was RE: An argument for bridging information models and ontologies at the syntactic level)

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:27:30 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D1240294858E@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Elkin, Peter L., M.D." <Elkin.Peter@mayo.edu>, <dan.russler@oracle.com>
Cc: "Samson Tu" <swt@stanford.edu>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <public-hcls-coi@w3.org>
One more point.  I agree with most everything you have stated.  One distiction
that we have found valuable is between high level domain models (level 2
Ontologies) and specific detailed classes of information (Example: Procedures vs
the class of patients who have had a laproscopic Cholecystectomy with
intra-operative cholangiogram), level 3 Ontologies.  Some of our rationale is
that often this crosses the information model with the terminology model, the
later for example being formed from a compositional terminological construction.
[VK] I agree that this is the most likely point where a cross-over happens. But
as we discussed in the earlier e-mails, if we had a common representation
formalism for information models and terminologies, the cross-over is not

	With warm regards,


	From: Kashyap, Vipul [mailto:VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG]
	Sent: Sat 5/31/2008 7:00 AM
	To: Elkin, Peter L., M.D.; dan.russler@oracle.com
	Cc: Samson Tu; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; public-hcls-coi@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Multi-layered Knowledge Representations for Healthcare (was
RE: An argument for bridging information models and ontologies at the syntactic
	Dear Peter,
	Apologies for the delay in responding  There'a a lot of stuff going
around right now and I needed some "think" time. Responses to your questions are
included inline.

		In order to not confuse the Ontology classification with First
Order / Second Order / Higher Order logics, we use Level 1 Ontologies to be
domain independent (EAV just being a representational mechanism for a logical
		[VK] Metamodels may be viewed as domain independent and based on
your descriptions so far Level 1 Ontologies do appear to be similar to the Meta
Model layer
		 level 2 Ontologies are domain dependent (e.g. CDA), and level
three contain defined instances as well as class based definitions.  We have
been able to make these distinctions work across multiple projects.  If there is
a level zero 
		[VK]  Our Level 2 proposal seem to be similar with the
difference being that my proposal seeks to spearate instances into Layer 3 and
keeps classes in Layer 2. I believe that there is value in distinguishing
between classes and instances. Level zero may be viewed as a simple
subject-predicate-object representation as in RDF. Upper level ontologies can
also be represented in this either at Level 1 or the MetaModel layer.
		I believe we need a final single formal representational schema
where constructions defined across Information Models and Terminological Models
can be validated.  
		[VK] Absolute agreement there. There is no need to represent
Infromation Models and Terminologies separately, in fact that could lead to
confilcts such as the same piece of knowledge represent inconsistently in an
Information Model and Terminology.
		 This interlingua should be defined from transforms from all
other valid logical languages and should empower all those SMEs familiar with
any valid logical system to work as they are comfortable.  I
		[VK] This is a critical requirement which is important to make
it all work. There have to be well defined and sound transformations from and
into the interlingua from any logical system. Of course we would need to work
through issues of varying expresiveness of all these formalisms.
		 n the end, that work product must be validated through the
common interlingua to ensure that meaning is preserved and therefore we are not
creating unrecognized ambiguity.
		[VK] Agreed!
		Peter: Do you have a document summarizing these thoughts which
could be viewed as requirements or desiderata which you could share with us?
		Thanks and Regards,

	The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended
	for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
	and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
	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 Saturday, 31 May 2008 15:28:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:34 UTC