- From: Mark <markw@illuminae.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:18:19 -0700
- To: "Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C]" <meadch@mail.nih.gov>, "Jim McCusker" <james.mccusker@yale.edu>
- Cc: "Hau, Dave (NIH/NCI) [E]" <haudt@mail.nih.gov>, "conor dowling" <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
+1 on MUO - we're also using it for our modeling of cardiovascular clinical data, and are very happy with it. We're making MUO units the range of the "has unit" predicate from Michel Dumontier's SIO ontology. Mark On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 19:48:28 -0700, Jim McCusker <james.mccusker@yale.edu> wrote: > http://forge.morfeo-project.org/wiki_en/index.php/Units_of_measurement_ontology#MUO_Basic_Instances:_UCUM > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C] < > meadch@mail.nih.gov> wrote: > >> How does the SW notion of units-of-measure align with things like 21090 >> and >> UCUM?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I need to traverse the links in Dave’s and Jim’s emails so this question >> <<might>> be a moot point.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> charlie**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Hau, Dave (NIH/NCI) [E] >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 18, 2011 03:51 >> *To:* Jim McCusker >> >> *Cc:* conor dowling; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org >> *Subject:* RE: FW: A Fresh Look Proposal (HL7)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Jim, I was thinking more about units of content as in a container >> storing >> properties from different classes, for a clinical purpose. The classic >> example here is when an EHR needs to store or report a blood pressure >> measurement, what are the various data elements that need to be >> reported to >> provide enough context to interpret the reading.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> To get an idea, take a look at the Intermountain CEM explorer:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://intermountainhealthcare.org/cem**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Do a model search for "blood pressure", look at BloodPressurePanel. >> You'll >> see it's a container storing the systolic, diastolic, MAP measurements, >> and >> some info on the method/device, body location, body position, patient >> precondition etc.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Same with the OpenEHR knowledge manager:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://www.openehr.org/knowledge/**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Double-click on: Entry > Observation > Blood Pressure**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Mark mentioned using SADI - I think maybe you could define a kind of >> meta-ontology representing input and output classes in SADI, that would >> represent these containers or archetypes. Then you would define REST >> interfaces based on that meta-ontology. I think this approach can be >> explored.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I need to read up more on the RESTful linked data interface mentioned by > >> Guoqian. I guess when I think of a REST mechanism for RDF, the >> challenge >> would be, RDF is a graph, whereas the URI resource path mechanism in >> REST is >> a tree, and it could be hard to unfold a graph into a tree...**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Mike, yes the section document (or the record itself) is where I >> envision >> the RDF would go. The hData proposal is appealing in that it's simple, >> and >> separates the transport and the content cleanly, so we have good >> separation >> of concern for the appropriate stakeholders (engineers vs. clinicians >> for >> example).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I also saw Chimezie Ogbuji's draft on "SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP >> Protocol" which is also REST based. Wonder if that would be applicable >> here?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/**** >> >> ** ** >> >> - Dave **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Jim McCusker [mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu] >> *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:07 PM >> *To:* Hau, Dave (NIH/NCI) [E] >> *Cc:* conor dowling; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org >> *Subject:* Re: FW: A Fresh Look Proposal (HL7)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Units of measure have a number of good representations in OWL/RDF. My >> current favorite is the Measurement Units Ontology, because it allows >> for >> composition of units from more basic units, it is designed to be used >> as an >> annotation property on properties as well as other configurations.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Jim**** >> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Hau, Dave (NIH/NCI) [E] < >> haudt@mail.nih.gov> wrote:**** >> >> Back to "forget the plumbing" and focus on the content, how would you >> define a unit of content for a particular purpose (e.g. a blood pressure > >> reading) in OWL and/or RDF? This would correspond to an archetype or >> Detailed Clinical Model (DCM), and would be a subset of the domain >> ontology(s).**** >> >> **** >> >> I also came across the hData effort which seems very promising:**** >> >> **** >> >> http://www.projecthdata.org**** >> >> **** >> >> They are proposing a REST mechanism for transport (with some basic HTTP >> based security as well), and a generic content format (hData Record >> Format) >> that's primarily XML based currently, but potentially could be adapted >> to >> carry RDF payload. (The REST mechanism claims conformance to the OMG >> RLUS >> profile, with a semantic signifier linking the data to the information >> model. IMHO this could potentially be adapted to use RDF instead, >> that's >> linked to concepts in an OWL model.) Is there a REST mechanism to >> expose >> RDF data?**** >> >> **** >> >> - Dave**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Jim McCusker [mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu] >> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2011 9:40 AM >> *To:* conor dowling >> *Cc:* Hau, Dave (NIH/NCI) [E]; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org**** >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: FW: A Fresh Look Proposal (HL7)**** >> >> **** >> >> I was just crafting a mail about how our investment in XML technologies >> hasn't paid off when this came in. What he said. :-)**** >> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM, conor dowling >> <conor-dowling@caregraf.com> >> wrote:**** >> >> >> The content matters, the format does not.**** >> >> **** >> >> should be front and center. Talk of XML that or JSON this, of RDF as >> XML in >> a chain is a distraction - it's just plumbing. There are many >> tool-chains >> and implementors are big boys - they can graze the buffet themselves. >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Central to any patient model rework (I hope) would be the interplay of >> formal specifications for terminologies like SNOMED along with any >> patient >> data information model. What should go in the terminology concept (the >> "object" in RDF terms) - what is left in the model (the "predicate"). >> Right >> now, this interplay is woefully under specified and implementors throw >> just >> about any old concept into "appropriate" slots in RIM (I know this from >> doing meaningful use tests: >> http://www.caregraf.com/blog/being-allergic-to-allergies, >> http://www.caregraf.com/blog/there-once-was-a-strawberry-allergy ) BTW, >> if >> SNOMED is the terminology of choice (for most) then the dance of it and >> any >> RIM-2 should drive much of RIM-2's form.**** >> >> **** >> >> This is a chance to get away from a fixation on formats/plumbing/"the >> trucks for data" and focus on content and in that focus to consider >> every >> aspect of expression, not just the verbs (RIM) or the objects (SNOMED) >> but >> both.**** >> >> **** >> >> Back to "forget the plumbing": if you want to publish a patient's data >> as >> an RDF graph or relational tables or you want a "document" to send on a >> wire, if you want to query with a custom protocol or use SPARQL or SQL, >> you >> should be able to and not be seen as an outlier. Each can be reduced to >> equivalents in other formats for particular interoperability. The >> problem >> right now is that so much time is spent talking about these containers >> and >> working between them and too little time is given over to what they >> contain, >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Conor**** >> >> **** >> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Hau, Dave (NIH/NCI) [E] < >> haudt@mail.nih.gov> wrote:**** >> >> I see what you're saying and I agree.**** >> >> **** >> >> The appeal of XML (i.e. XML used with an XSD representing model >> syntactics, >> not XML used as a serialization as in RDF/XML) is due in part to:**** >> >> **** >> >> - XML schema validation API is available on virtually all platforms e.g. > >> Java, Javascript, Google Web Toolkit, Android etc.**** >> >> - XML schema validation is relatively lightweight computationally. >> Pellet >> ICV and similar mechanisms are more complete in their validation with >> the >> model, but much more computationally expensive unless you restrict >> yourself >> to a small subset of OWL which then limits the expressiveness of the >> modeling language.**** >> >> - XML provides a convenient bridge from models such as OWL to relational > >> databases e.g. via JAXB or Castor to Java objects to Hibernate to any >> RDB. >> **** >> >> - Relational querying and XML manipulation skills are much more >> plentiful >> in the market than SPARQL skills currently.**** >> >> - Some of the current HL7 artifacts are expressed in XSD format, such as > >> their datatypes (ISO 21090 ; although there are alternative >> representations >> such as UML, and there is an abstract spec too from HL7). If we operate > >> with OWL and RDF exclusively, would need to convert these datatypes into > >> OWL.**** >> >> **** >> >> Maybe it'd be worthwhile to get a few of us who are interested in this >> topic together, with some of the HL7 folks interested, and have a few >> calls >> to flush this out and maybe write something up?**** >> >> **** >> >> - Dave**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Jim McCusker [mailto:james.mccusker@yale.edu] >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2011 6:12 PM >> *To:* Hau, Dave (NIH/NCI) [E] >> *Cc:* public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org >> *Subject:* Re: FW: A Fresh Look Proposal (HL7)**** >> >> **** >> >> I feel I need to cut to the chase with this one: XML schema cannot >> validate >> semantic correctness.**** >> >> **** >> >> It can validate that XML conforms to a particular schema, but that is >> syntactic. The OWL validator is nothing like a schema validator, first >> it >> produces a closure of all statements that can be inferred from the >> asserted >> information. This means that if a secondary ontology is used to describe > >> some data, and that ontology integrates with the ontology that you're >> attempting to validate against, you will get a valid result. An XML >> schema >> can only work with what's in front of it.**** >> >> **** >> >> Two, there are many different representations of information that go >> beyond >> XML, and it should be possible to validate that information without >> anything >> other than a mechanical, universal translation. For instance, there are >> a >> few mappings of RDF into JSON, including JSON-LD, which looks the most >> promising at the moment. Since RDF/XML and JSON-LD both parse to the >> same >> abstract graph, there is a mechanical transformation between them. When >> dealing with semantic validity, you want to check the graph that is >> parsed >> from the document, not the document itself.**** >> >> **** >> >> The content matters, the format does not. For instance, let me define a >> new >> RDF format called RDF/CSV:**** >> >> **** >> >> First column is the subject. First row is the predicate. All other cell >> values are objects. URIs that are relative are relative to the >> document, as >> in RDF/XML.**** >> >> **** >> >> I can write a parser for that in 1 hour and publish it. It's genuinely >> useful, and all you would have to do to read and write it is to use my >> parser or write one yourself. I can then use the parser, paired with >> Pellet >> ICV, and validate the information in the file without any additional >> work >> from anyone.**** >> >> **** >> >> Maybe we need a simplified XML representation for RDF that looks more >> like >> regular XML. But to make a schema for an OWL ontology is too much work >> for >> too little payoff.**** >> >> **** >> >> Jim**** >> >> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Hau, Dave (NIH/NCI) [E] < >> haudt@mail.nih.gov> wrote:**** >> >> Hi all,**** >> >> **** >> >> As some of you may have read, HL7 is rethinking their v3 and doing some >> brainstorming on what would be a good replacement for a data exchange >> paradigm grounded in robust semantic modeling.**** >> >> **** >> >> On the following email exchange, I was wondering, if OWL is used for >> semantic modeling, are there good ways to accomplish the following:**** >> >> **** >> >> 1. Generate a wire format schema (for a subset of the model, the subset > >> they call a "resource"), e.g. XSD**** >> >> **** >> >> 2. Validate XML instances for conformance to the semantic model. (Here > >> I'm reminded of Clark and Parsia's work on their Integrity Constraint >> Validator: http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/icv )**** >> >> **** >> >> 3. Map an XML instance conformant to an earlier version of the >> "resource" >> to the current version of the "resource" via the OWL semantic model**** >> >> **** >> >> I think it'd be great to get a semantic web perspective on this fresh >> look >> effort.**** >> >> **** >> >> Cheers,**** >> >> Dave**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Dave Hau**** >> >> National Cancer Institute**** >> >> Tel: 301-443-2545**** >> >> Dave.Hau@nih.gov**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* owner-its@lists.hl7.org [mailto:owner-its@lists.hl7.org] *On > >> Behalf Of *Lloyd McKenzie >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2011 12:07 PM >> *To:* Andrew McIntyre >> *Cc:* Grahame Grieve; Eliot Muir; Zel, M van der; HL7-MnM; RIMBAA; HL7 >> ITS >> *Subject:* Re: A Fresh Look Proposal**** >> >> **** >> >> Hi Andrew,**** >> >> **** >> >> Tacking stuff on the end simply doesn't work if you're planning to use >> XML >> Schema for validation. (Putting new stuff in the middle or the >> beginning >> has the same effect - it's an unrecognized element.) The only >> alternative >> is to say that all changes after "version 1" of the specification will >> be >> done using the extension mechanism. That will create tremendous >> analysis >> paralysis as we try to get things "right" for that first version, and >> will >> result in increasing clunkiness in future versions. Furthermore, the >> extension mechanism only works for the wire format. For the RIM-based >> description, we still need proper modeling, and that can't work with >> "stick >> it on the end" no matter what.**** >> >> **** >> >> That said, I'm not advocating for the nightmare we currently have with >> v3 >> right now.**** >> >> **** >> >> I think the problem has three parts - how to manage changes to the wire >> format, how to version resource definitions and how to manage changes >> to the >> semantic model.**** >> >> **** >> >> Wire format:**** >> >> If we're using schema for validation, we really can't change anything >> without breaking validation. Even making an existing non-repeating >> element >> repeat is going to cause schema validation issues. That leaves us with >> two >> options (if we discount the previously discussed option of "get it >> right the >> first time and be locked there forever":**** >> >> 1. Don't use schema**** >> >> - Using Schematron or something else could easily allow validation of >> the >> elements that are present, but ignore all "unexpected" elements**** >> >> - This would cause significant pain for implementers who like to use >> schema >> to help generate code though**** >> >> **** >> >> 2. Add some sort of a version indicator on new content that allows a >> pre-processor to remove all "new" content if processing using an "old" >> handler**** >> >> - Unpleasant in that it involves a pre-processing step and adds extra >> "bulk" to the instances, but other than that, quite workable**** >> >> **** >> >> I think we're going to have to go with option #2. It's not ideal, but >> is >> still relatively painless for implementers. The biggest thing is that >> we >> can insist on "no breaking x-path changes". We don't move stuff between > >> levels in a resource wire format definition or rename elements in a >> resource >> wire format definition. In the unlikely event we have to deprecate the >> entire resource and create a new version.**** >> >> **** >> >> Resource versioning:**** >> >> At some point, HL7 is going to find at least one resource where we blew >> it >> with the original design and the only way to create a coherent wire >> format >> is to break compatibility with the old one. This will then require >> definition of a new resource, with a new name that occupies the same >> semantic space as the original. I.e. We'll end up introducing >> "overlap". >> Because overlap will happen, we need to figure out how we're going to >> deal >> with it. I actually think we may want to introduce overlap in some >> places >> from the beginning. Otherwise we're going to force a wire format on >> implementers of simple community EMRs that can handle prescriptions for >> fully-encoded chemo-therapy protocols. (They can ignore some of the >> data >> elements, but they'd still have to support the full complexity of the >> nested >> data structures.)**** >> >> **** >> >> I don't have a clear answer here, but I think we need to have a serious >> discussion about how we'll handle overlap in those cases where it's >> necessary, because at some point it'll be necessary. If we don't >> figure out >> the approach before we start, we can't allow for it in the design.**** >> >> **** >> >> All that said, I agree with the approach of avoiding overlap as much as >> humanly possible. For that reason, I don't advocate calling the Person >> resource "Person_v1" or something that telegraphs we're going to have >> new >> versions of each resource eventually (let alone frequent changes). >> Introduction of a new version of a resource should only be done when >> the >> pain of doing so is outweighed by the pain of trying to fit new content >> in >> an old version, or requiring implementers of the simple to support the >> structural complexity of our most complex use-cases.**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Semantic model versioning:**** >> >> This is the space where "getting it right" the first time is the most >> challenging. (I think we've done that with fewer than half of the >> normative >> specifications we've published so far.) V3 modeling is hard. The >> positive >> thing about the RFH approach is that very few people need to care. We >> could >> totally refactor every single resource's RIM-based model (or even remove > >> them entirely), and the bulk of implementers would go on merrily >> exchanging >> wire syntax instances. However, that doesn't mean the RIM-based >> representations aren't important. They're the foundation for the >> meaning of >> what's being shared. And if you want to start sharing at a deeper level > >> such as RIMBAA-based designs, they're critical. This is the level >> where OWL >> would come in. If you have one RIM-based model structure, and then >> need to >> refactor and move to a different RIM-based model structure, you're >> going to >> want to map the semantics between the two structures so that anyone who >> was >> using the old structure can manage instances that come in with the new >> structure (or vice versa). OWL can do that. And anyone who's got a >> complex >> enough implementation to parse the wire format and trace the elements >> through the their underlying RIM semantic model will likely be capable >> of >> managing the OWL mapping component as well.**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> In short, I think we're in agreement that separation of wire syntax and >> semantic model are needed. That will make model refactoring much >> easier. >> However we do have to address how we're going to handle wire-side and >> resource refactoring too.**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Lloyd**** >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Lloyd McKenzie >> >> +1-780-993-9501 >> >> >> >> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions >> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients >> nor >> those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions.**** >> >> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Andrew McIntyre < >> andrew@medical-objects.com.au> wrote:**** >> >> Hello Lloyd, >> >> While "tacking stuff on the end" in V2 may not at first glance seem >> like an >> elegant solution I wonder if it isn't actually the best solution, and >> one >> that has stood the test of time. The parsing rules in V2 do make version > >> updates quite robust wrt backward and forward inter-operability. >> >> I am sure it could be done with OWL but I doubt we can switch the world >> to >> using OWL in any reasonable time frame and we probably need a less >> abstract >> representation for commonly used things. In V2 OBX segments, used in a >> hierarchy can create an OWL like object-attribute structure for >> information >> that is not modeled by the standard itself. >> >> I do think the wire format and any overlying model should be distinct >> entities so that the model can be evolved and the wire format be >> changed in >> a backward compatible way, at least for close versions. >> >> I also think that the concept of templates/archetypes to extend the >> model >> should not invalidate the wire format, but be a metadata layer over the >> wire >> format. This is what we have done in Australia with an ISO 13606 >> Archetypes >> in V2 projects. I think we do need a mechanism for people to develop >> templates to describe hierarchical data and encode that in the wire >> format >> in a way that does not invalidate its vanilla semantics (ie non >> templated V2 >> semantics) when the template mechanism is unknown or not implemented. >> >> In a way the V2 specification does hit at underlying objects/Interfaces, > >> and there is a V2 model, but it is not prescriptive and there is no >> requirement for systems to use the same internal model as long as they >> use >> the bare bones V2 model in the same way. Obviously this does not always >> work >> as well as we would like, even in V2, but it does work well enough to >> use it >> for quite complex data when there are good implementation guides. >> >> If we could separate the wire format from the clinical models then the 2 > >> can evolve in their own way. We have done several trial implementations >> of >> Virtual Medical Record Models (vMR) which used V3 datatypes and RIM like > >> classes and could build those models from V2 messages, or in some cases >> non >> standard Web Services, although for specific clinical classes did use >> ISO >> 13606 archetypes to structure the data in V2 messages. >> >> I think the dream of having direct model serializations as messages is >> flawed for all the reasons that have made V3 impossible to implement in >> the >> wider world. While the tack it on the end, lots of optionality rationale > >> might seem clunky, maybe its the best solution to a difficult problem. >> If we >> define tight SOAP web services for everything we will end up with >> thousands >> of slightly different SOAP calls for every minor variation and I am not >> sure >> this is the path to enlightenment either. >> >> I am looking a Grahams proposal now, but I do wonder if the start again >> from scratch mentality is not part of the problem. Perhaps that is a >> lesson >> to be learned from the V3 process. Maybe the problem is 2 complex to >> solve >> from scratch and like nature we have to evolve and accept there is lots >> of >> junk DNA, but maintaining a working standard at all times is the only >> way to >> avoid extinction. >> >> I do like the idea of a cohesive model for use in decision support, and >> that's what the vMR/GELLO is about, but I doubt there will ever be a one > >> size fits all model and any model will need to evolve. Disconnecting the > >> model from the messaging, with all the pain that involves, might create >> a >> layered approach that might allow the HL7 organism to evolve >> gracefully. I >> do think part of the fresh look should be education on what V2 actually >> offers, and can offer, and I suspect many people in HL7 have never >> seriously >> looked at it in any depth. >> >> Andrew McIntyre**** >> >> >> >> Saturday, August 20, 2011, 4:37:37 AM, you wrote:**** >> >> Hi Grahame, >> >> Going to throw some things into the mix from our previous discussions >> because I don't see them addressed yet. (Though I admit I haven't >> reread >> the whole thing, so if you've addressed and I haven't seen, just point >> me at >> the proper location.) >> >> One of the challenges that has bogged down much of the v3 work at the >> international level (and which causes a great deal of pain at the >> project/implementation level) is the issue of refactoring. The pain at >> the >> UV level comes from the fact that we have a real/perceived obligation to > >> meet all known and conceivable use-cases for a particular domain. For >> example, the pharmacy domain model needs to meet the needs of clinics, >> hospitals, veterinarians, and chemotherapy protocols and must support >> the >> needs of the U.S., Soviet union and Botswana. To make matters more >> interesting, participation from the USSR and Botswana is a tad light. >> However the fear is that if all of these needs aren't taken into >> account, >> then when someone with those needs shows up at the door, the model will >> need >> to undergo substantive change, and that will break all of the existing >> systems. >> >> The result is a great deal of time spent gathering requirements and >> refactoring and re-refactoring the model as part of the design process, >> together with a tendency to make most, if not all data elements >> optional at >> the UV level. A corollary is that the UV specs are totally >> unimplementable >> in an interoperable fashion. The evil of optionality that manifested >> in v2 >> that v3 was going to banish turned out to not be an issue of the >> standard, >> but rather of the issues with creating a generic specification that >> satisfies global needs and a variety of use-cases. >> >> The problem at the implementer/project level is that when you take the >> UV >> model and tightly constrain it to fit your exact requirements, you >> discover >> 6 months down the road that one or more of your constraints was wrong >> and >> you need to loosen it, or you have a new requirement that wasn't >> thought of, >> and this too requires refactoring and often results in wire-level >> incompatibilities. >> >> One of the things that needs to be addressed if we're really going to >> eliminate one of the major issues with v3 is a way to reduce the fear of > >> refactoring. Specifically, it should be possible to totally refactor >> the >> model and have implementations and designs work seemlessly across >> versions. >> >> I think putting OWL under the covers should allows for this. If we can >> assert equivalencies between data elements in old and new models, or >> even >> just map the wire syntaxes of old versions to new versions of the >> definition >> models, then this issue would be significantly addressed: >> - Committees wouldn't have to worry about satisfying absolutely every >> use-case to get something useful out because they know they can make >> changes >> later without breaking everything. (They wouldn't even necessarily >> have to >> meet all the use-cases of the people in the room! :>) >> - Realms and other implementers would be able to have an >> interoperability >> path that allowed old wire formats to interoperate with new wireformats >> through the aid of appropriate tooling that could leverage the OWL >> under the >> covers. (I think creating such tooling is *really* important because >> version management is a significant issue with v3. And with XML and >> schemas, the whole "ignore everything on the end you don't recognize" >> from >> v2 isn't a terribly reasonable way forward. >> >> I think it's important to figure out exactly how refactoring and version > >> management will work in this new approach. The currently proposed >> approach >> of "you can add stuff, but you can't change what's there" only scales so > >> far. >> >> >> I think we *will* need to significantly increase the number of Resources > >> (from 30 odd to a couple of hundred). V3 supports things like invoices, > >> clinical study design, outbreak tracking and a whole bunch of other >> healthcare-related topics that may not be primary-care centric but are >> still >> healthcare centric. That doesn't mean all (or even most) systems will >> need >> to deal with them, but the systems that care will definitely need >> them. The >> good news is that most of these more esoteric areas have responsible >> committees that can manage the definition of these resources, and as you > >> mention, we can leverage the RMIMs and DMIMs we already have in defining > >> these structures. >> >> >> The specification talks about robust capturing of requirements and >> traceability to them, but gives no insight into how this will occur. >> It's >> something we've done a lousy job of with v3, but part of the reason for >> that >> is it's not exactly an easy thing to do. The solution needs to flesh >> out >> exactly how this will happen. >> >> >> We need a mapping that explains exactly what's changed in the datatypes >> (and for stuff that's been removed, how to handle that use-case). >> >> There could still be a challenge around granularity of text. As I >> understand it, you can have a text representation for an attribute, or >> for >> any XML element. However, what happens if you have a text blob in your >> interface that covers 3 of 7 attributes inside a given XML element. You > >> can't use the text property of the element, because the text only >> covers 3 >> of 7. You can't use the text property of one of the attributes because >> it >> covers 3 separate attributes. You could put the same text in each of >> the 3 >> attributes, but that's somewhat redundant and is going to result in >> rendering issues. One solution might be to allow the text specified at >> the >> element level to identify which of the attributes the text covers. A >> rendering system could then use that text for those attributes, and then > >> render the discrete values of the remaining specified attributes. What >> this >> would mean is that an attribute might be marked as "text" but not have >> text >> content directly if the parent element had a text blob that covered that > >> attribute. >> >> >> >> New (to Grahame) comments: >> >> I didn't see anything in the HTML section or the transaction section on >> how >> collisions are managed for updates. A simple requirement (possibly >> optional) to include the version id of the resource being updated or >> deleted >> should work. >> >> To my knowledge, v3 (and possibly v2) has never supported true >> "deletes". >> At best, we do an update and change the status to nullified. Is that >> the >> intention of the "Delete" transaction, or do we really mean a true >> "Delete"? >> Do we have any use-cases for true deletes? >> >> I wasn't totally clear on the context for uniqueness of ids. Is it >> within >> a given resource or within a given base URL? What is the mechanism for >> referencing resources from other base URLs? (We're likely to have >> networks >> of systems that play together.) >> >> Nitpick: I think "id" might better be named "resourceId" to avoid any >> possible confusion with "identifier". I recognize that from a coding >> perspective, shorter is better. However, I think that's outweightd by >> the >> importance of avoiding confusion. >> >> In the resource definitions, you repeated definitions for resources >> inherited from parent resources. E.g. Person.created inherited from >> Resource.Base.created. Why? That's a lot of extra maintenance and >> potential for inconsistency. It also adds unnecessary volume. >> >> Suggest adding a caveat to the draft that the definitions are >> placeholders >> and will need significant work. (Many are tautological and none meet >> the >> Vocab WG's guidelines for quality definitions.) >> >> Why is Person.identifier mandatory? >> >> You've copied "an element from Resource.Base.???" to all of the Person >> attributes, including those that don't come from Resource.Base. >> >> Obviously the workflow piece and the conformance rules that go along >> with >> it need some fleshing out. (Looks like this may be as much fun in v4 >> as it >> has been in v3 :>) >> >> The list of identifier types makes me queasy. It looks like we're >> reintroducing the mess that was in v2. Why? Trying to maintain an >> ontology >> of identifier types is a lost cause. There will be a wide range of >> granularity requirements and at fine granularity, there will be 10s of >> thousands. The starter list is pretty incoherent. If you're going to >> have >> types at all, the vocabulary should be constrained to a set of codes >> based >> on the context in which the real-world identifier is present. If >> there's no >> vocabulary defined for the property in that context, then you can use >> text >> for a label and that's it. >> >> I didn't see anything on conformance around datatypes. Are we going to >> have datatype flavors? How is conformance stated for datatype >> properties? >> >> I didn't see templateId or flavorId or any equivalent. How do instances > >> (or portions there-of) declare conformance to "additional" constraint >> specifications/conformance profiles than the base one for that >> particular >> server? >> >> We need to beef up the RIM mapping portion considerably. Mapping to a >> single RIM class or attribute isn't sufficient. Most of the time, we're > >> going to need to map to a full context model that talks about the >> classCodes, moodCodes and relationships. Also, you need to relate >> attributes to the context of the RIM location of your parent. >> >> There's no talk about context conduction, which from an implementation >> perspective is a good thing. However, I think it's still needed behind >> the >> scenes. Presumably this would be covered as part of the RIM semantics >> layer? >> >> In terms of the "validate" transaction, we do a pseudo-validate in >> pharmacy, but a 200 response isn't sufficient. We can submit a draft >> prescription and say "is this ok?". The response might be as simple as >> "yes" (i.e. a 200). However, it could also be a "no" or "maybe" with a >> list >> of possible contraindications, dosage issues, allergy alerts and other >> detected issues. How would such a use-case be met in this paradigm? >> >> At the risk of over-complicating things, it might be useful to think >> about >> data properties as being identifying or not to aid in exposing >> resources in >> a de-identified way. (Not critical, just wanted to plant the seed in >> your >> head about if or how this might be done.) >> >> >> All questions and comments aside, I definitely in favour of fleshing out > >> this approach and looking seriously at moving to it. To that end, I >> think >> we need a few things: >> - A list of the open issues that need to be resolved in the new >> approach. >> (You have "todo"s scattered throughout. A consolidated list of the >> "big" >> things would be useful.) >> - An analysis of how we move from existing v3 to the new approach, both >> in >> terms of leveraging existing artifacts and providing a migration path >> for >> existing solutions as well as what tools, etc. we need. >> - A plan for how to engage the broader community for review. (Should >> ideally do this earlier rather than later.) >> >> Thanks to you, Rene and others for all the work you've done. >> >> >> Lloyd >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Lloyd McKenzie >> >> +1-780-993-9501 >> >> >> >> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions >> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my clients >> nor >> those of the organizations with whom I hold governance positions. >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Grahame Grieve >> <grahame@kestral.com.au*** >> * >> >> > wrote:**** >> >> >> hi All >> >> Responses to comments >> >> #Michael >> >> > 1. I would expect more functional interface to use these resources. >> >> as you noted in later, this is there, but I definitely needed to make >> more of it. That's where I ran out of steam >> >> > 2. One of the things that was mentioned (e.g. at the Orlando >> > WGM RIMBAA Fresh Look discussion) is that we want to use >> > industry standard tooling, right? Are there enough libraries that >> > implement REST? >> >> this doesn't need tooling. There's schemas if you want to bind to them >> >> > 2b. A lot of vendors now implement WebServices. I think we should >> > go for something vendors already have or will easilly adopt. Is that >> the >> case with REST? >> >> Speaking as a vendor/programmer/writer of an open source web services >> toolkit, I prefer REST. Way prefer REST >> >> > Keep up the good work! >> >> ta >> >> #Mark >> >> > I very much like the direction of this discussion towards web services > >> > and in particular RESTful web services. >> >> yes, though note that REST is a place to start, not a place to finish. >> >> > At MITRE we have been advocating this approach for some time with our >> hData initiative. >> >> yes. you'll note my to do: how does this relate to hData, which is a >> higher level >> specification than the CRUD stuff here. >> >> #Eliot >> >> > Hats off - I think it's an excellent piece of work and definitely a >> step >> in right direction. >> >> thanks. >> >> > I didn't know other people in the HL7 world other than me were talking > >> about >> > (highrise). Who are they? >> >> not in Hl7. you were one. it came up in some other purely IT places >> that I >> play >> >> > 5) Build it up by hand with a wiki - it is more scalable really since > >> you >> >> wiki's have their problems, though I'm not against them. >> >> > 1) I think it would be better not to use inheritance to define a >> patient >> as >> > a sub type of a person. The trouble with that approach is that people > >> can >> >> On the wire, a patient is not a sub type of person. The relationship >> between the two is defined in the definitions. >> >> > A simpler approach is associate additional data with a person if and >> when >> > they become a patient. >> >> in one way, this is exactly what RFH does. On the other hand, it >> creates a >> new identity for the notion of patient (for integrity). We can discuss >> whether that's good or bad. >> >> > 2) I'd avoid language that speaks down to 'implementers'. It's >> enterprise >> >> really? Because I'm one. down the bottom of your enterprise pole. And >> I'm happy to be one of those stinking implementers down in the mud. >> I wrote it first for me. But obviously we wouldn't want to cause >> offense. >> I'm sure I haven't caused any of that this week ;-) >> >> > 3) If you want to reach a broader audience, then simplify the >> language. >> >> argh, and I thought I had. how can we not use the right terms? But I >> agree that the introduction is not yet direct enough - and that's after >> 4 rewrites to try and make it so.... >> >> Grahame >> >> >> ************************************************ >> To access the Archives of this or other lists or change your list >> settings >> and information, go to: **** >> >> http://www.hl7.org/listservice**** >> >> >> >> ************************************************ >> To access the Archives of this or other lists or change your list >> settings >> and information, go to: http://www.hl7.org/listservice**** >> >> >> >> >> >> *-- >> Best regards, >> Andrew >> *mailto:andrew@Medical-Objects.com.au<andrew@Medical-Objects.com.au> >> >> *sent from a real computer***** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **************************************************** >> >> To access the Archives of this or other lists or change your list >> settings and information, go to: http://www.hl7.org/listservice**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> Jim McCusker >> Programmer Analyst >> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >> Yale School of Medicine >> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >> >> PhD Student >> Tetherless World Constellation >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >> http://tw.rpi.edu**** >> >> **** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> -- >> Jim McCusker >> Programmer Analyst >> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >> Yale School of Medicine >> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >> >> PhD Student >> Tetherless World Constellation >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >> http://tw.rpi.edu**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> Jim McCusker >> Programmer Analyst >> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >> Yale School of Medicine >> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >> >> PhD Student >> Tetherless World Constellation >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >> http://tw.rpi.edu**** >> > > > > -- > Jim McCusker > Programmer Analyst > Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics > Yale School of Medicine > james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 > http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu > > PhD Student > Tetherless World Constellation > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > mccusj@cs.rpi.edu > http://tw.rpi.edu > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3903 - Release Date: 09/17/11
Received on Sunday, 18 September 2011 04:19:08 UTC