RE: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards

Just did a white paper on it.  I don't think it's a good idea in general 
to put clinical models all in OWL or DL at all.
That part is best left to the SNOMED vocabulary part.

Here is a very recent paper on how to mix the Extensional and Intensional 
parts of the models according to how HL7 V3 does it and how Kaiser does 
it.

http://www.ringholm.com/docs/05000_Clinical_Models_and_SNOMED.htm 




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.




"Lin MD, Simon" <LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu> 
08/15/2012 08:11 AM

To
"Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C]" <meadch@mail.nih.gov>, Kerstin Forsberg 
<kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com>, HCLS hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards






Great topic! I can imagine a potential white paper from this group. 

Besides technology, factors to consider might include: flexibility, 
implementation cost, return on investments, path to migration etc.

Best regards,

Simon

==================================================
Simon Lin, MD
Director, Biomedical Informatics Research Center 
Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation 
1000 N Oak Ave, Marshfield, WI 54449 
Office 715-221-7299 
Lin.Simon@mcrf.mfldclin.edu 
www.marshfieldclinic.org/birc

For scheduling assistance, please contact
      Crystal Gumz, Administrative Secretary
      gumz.crystal@mcrf.mfldclin.edu
      715-221-6403


-----Original Message-----
From: Mead, Charlie (NIH/NCI) [C] [mailto:meadch@mail.nih.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:02 AM
To: Kerstin Forsberg; HCLS hcls
Subject: RE: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards

I would say Yes -- particularly since there is now an effort to represent 
some of newest HL7 standards -- FHIR resource definitions in particular -- 
using SW approaches...and the BRIDG OWL representation will almost 
certainly benefit from this effort.

charlie
________________________________________
From: Kerstin Forsberg [kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:57 AM
To: HCLS hcls
Subject: FDA: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards

FDA seeks "input from industry, technology vendors, and other members of 
the public regarding the advantages and disadvantages of current and 
emerging open, consensus-based standards for the exchange of regulated 
study data. "

In the annoncement for a meeting 5 November FDA ask for responses, before 
5 October, on questions such as "- What are the advantages and 
disadvantages of HL7 v3 and CDISC ODM?"

And, interestingly, they also ask: "- Are there other open data exchange 
standards that should be evaluated?"

Is this an opportunity for a semantic web based proposal?

Kind Regards

Kerstin Forsberg

AstraZeneca



https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/08/14/2012-19748/regulatory-new-drug-review-solutions-for-study-data-exchange-standards-notice-of-meeting-request-for


______________________________________________________________________
The contents of this message may contain private, protected and/or 
privileged information.  If you received this message in error, you should 
destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you are 
prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any 
information contained within.  Please contact the sender and advise of the 
erroneous delivery by return e-mail or telephone.  Thank you for your 
cooperation.