Re: seeks input on Study Data Exchange Standards

Hi All,

There seems to be a lot of interest in brainstorming about this.
How about doing an ad hoc call for this?

I've set up a doodle pole so that we can try to agree on a date next week: http://doodle.com/g5vimt6gyshv77fd

We can use W3C systems, I presume, right, Eric?
Kind Regards ,
Helena

Helena F. Deus, PhD
Unit Leader, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
helena.deus@deri.org
+353 91 495 270







On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Sahay, Ratnesh wrote:

> Hi Peter and All,
>  
> I think entities that are part of Version 3 XML coreSchemas (e.g, Vocabulary ) can be represented in OWL or DL, however problem is with local models (e.g., RMIM) that are context-specific (i.e., time, place, event dependent information).  One observation in the article below: “One major characteristic of this Extensional logic is that "classes must be extended by the authors of the model.".  It is also the case with the Intensional logic. For example, class-subclass relation needs to be explicitly stated here as well, with a feature of inference that may entail  additional relations. I think one of the main differences between closed-world UML/object-oriented paradigm and open-world (ontologies) is use of properties.   An ontology property appears, at a first glance, to be the same as the UML association or attribute. However, properties in an ontology are first-class modelling elements, while the UML association or attribute is attached to UML classes where they are described. This means the UML association or attribute cannot exist in isolation or as a self-describing entity defining relationships such as inheritance. More precisely, in an ontology a relation can exist without specifying any classes to which it might relate.  Some key benefits that I see of using Semantic Web for the HL7 standard:  
>  
> (1 ) Semantic Web technologies as a “common medium" where the upper layer (Information Model or terminologies in OWL) and lower layer (data in RDF) can be engaged with each other during the
> integration process. Without the need of transformation (or mediation) between them, as is the case with UML-XML based systems.
> (2)  The mutual use of Semantic Web technologies as a “common medium" between upper and lower layers provide computable semantics of the information models (as ontologies), improving
> the reuse and overall data integration.
>  
> There are other benefits (and limitations as well) but that require long discussion.
>  
> Regards,
> Ratnesh  
>  
> From: Peter.Hendler@kp.org [mailto:Peter.Hendler@kp.org] 
> Sent: 15 August 2012 16:18
> To: LINMD.SIMON@mcrf.mfldclin.edu
> Cc: kerstin.l.forsberg@gmail.com; meadch@mail.nih.gov; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: 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.
>