Re: semantic web for EHRs

obviously - I am too!

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Pan, Tony <tony.pan@emory.edu> wrote:

> Definitely interested.
>
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dan russler [mailto:dan.russler@oracle.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:19 AM
> To: Kingsley Idehen
> Cc: conor dowling; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; Pan, Tony; Melliyal
> Annamalai
> Subject: Re: semantic web for EHRs
>
> 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?
> >
>
> This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
> prohibited.
>
> If you have received this message in error, please contact
> the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
> original message (including attachments).
>