- From: Michael Miller <mmiller@systemsbiology.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:47:34 -0800
- To: Peter.Hendler@kp.org, twclark@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
- Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <9e34bf25fc97ce5e80ac3ce28e5aea15@mail.gmail.com>
hi all, "unambiguous identifier for "things"" i agree, this has been a known issue for many years (as you well know, tim) but its importance is just now growing as multi-omics studies and sharing of EHR records is becoming more common. "It is HL7 V3" i also agree, in a sense, with this. HL7 messages capture information as a whole, as an entity, so in that representation it is also true that semantic web technologies would have a hard time, as is, making sense of them because semantic web technologies wants a fact by fact representation, e.g. triple store. as a software developer i've found both view points useful depending on the task at hand. some applications present themselves as better able to relate entities as a whole with each other (typical OO designs) where as others that want to relate entities to each other to discover similarities and differences lend themselves to the semantic web approach. yes, one can try to force semantic web technologies on applications that involve live workflow pipelines and one could write applications to try and search over HL7 XML formats and they would work to some degree but i think there is a place for both approaches. i also feel that it wouldn't be hard to present HL7 messages as meaningful triple stores, especially since they make extensive use of controlled vocabularies. cheers, michael *From:* public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org [mailto: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter.Hendler@kp.org *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:18 AM *To:* markw@illuminae.com *Cc:* public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org; twclark@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu *Subject:* Wait a sec...What about the HL7 RIM An Universal Exchange Language The PCAST did not take into consideration (maybe they don't even know) there is an universal exchange language for healthcare. It is HL7 V3. The CDA is merely one of virtually infinite structures that can be constructed from the RIM. The meta information as well as the clinical data is unambiguously represented by RIM. There is no reason to ignore the thousands of man years that went into designing the RIM. The RIM Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA) work group at HL7 has had many demonstrations of RIM based applications. We don't need to re invent the wheel. CDA is only one particular RIM structure designed for one particular use case. Those of us who have been working at HL7 for years are blown away by the suggestion that there needs to be a different wheel invented. *NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:* If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you. *Mark <markw@illuminae.com>* Sent by: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org 12/14/2010 06:44 PM To "Tim Clark" <twclark@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> cc public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org Subject Re: An Universal Exchange Language But seriously, Tim, if we were to pursue this problem, we would need some form of unambiguous identifier for "things"... and given the distributed nature of the biomedical domain, we'd want to make sure that there was some way of resolving that identifier to obtain metadata about it from a variety of disparate sources who might have very different information - clinical, molecular, demographic, etc... hmmmm....
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 18:31:29 UTC