- From: dan russler <dan.russler@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:19:16 -0500
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: conor dowling <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Pan, Tony" <tony.pan@emory.edu>, Melliyal Annamalai <melliyal.annamalai@oracle.com>
There is interest in using RDF and OWL to support Semantic Web Services over the NHIN. Anyone interested in helping can contact me. Dan On 3/12/2010 8:40 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > conor dowling wrote: >> >> > U.S.? (There's little here from what I can see - the >> interoperability push is around SOAP). >> >> In my view, SOAP is the wrong direction. It is just adds >> complexity and >> contributes to "babelization": >> http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/0717-semweb-dbooth/slide10-0.html >> >> >> you're right but here's the rub - there's $'s in babel. Bad IT - >> translation layers and their maintenance - is good business, sometimes. >> >> Take the U.S. NHIN CONNECT project whose laudable goal is to allow >> patient record exchange between institutions big and small. It >> tackles what's need - security, credentials, opt-in etc - and then >> ... well, it gets all SOAP'y. Gateways, adapters, layers, all those >> layers. What about a "web of interlinked data", just add security >> policy ...?? >> >> It's annoying because think how easy linking is - in reality and now, >> not just conceptually, some time away. (I know I'm preaching to the >> choir here but ...) >> >> Take a patient vital - http://vista.caregraf.org/rambler/120.5/716 >> (Christopher's blood pressure at a date). This record is typed by the >> VA vital type, http://vista.caregraf.org/rambler/120.51/1 (blood >> pressure), one of 19 that the system records ( >> http://vista.caregraf.org/rambler/120.51 ). Vital type is a "locked >> file" ( http://vista.caregraf.org/rambler/schema/120.51 ), one of >> many terminology files in VistA. >> >> Now, on the face of it, such data is meaningless outside this VistA. >> We need a "mapping layer", an "RPC". A "type-mapper". A reformatter. >> Layers ... >> >> BUT WE KNOW (on this group) that it is trival to do something like ... >> :120.51/1 ---- same as -----> SNOMED:392570002 >> and heh presto, your vitals are "linked". Were Christopher lucky >> enough to end up in the Cleveland Clinic then this and his other data >> would be trivial to query - no longer site or even VA-specific. >> >> And this isn't an isolated case. It's true in general. (I'm working >> on an "linked patient browser" - needs very little code - and this >> principle holds true for procedures, medicines, vaccines ...). >> The train is leaving the station on health records (in the U.S. >> 'meaningful use' is about to get nailed down) and they're made for >> the web of data but all we have are soap bubbles, all a drift ... > Is there going to be an RDF model based Linked Data View over this > data? Or are you looking for help re. Linked Data publishing etc? >
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 14:20:11 UTC