apologies if this is a tangent but why is what's identified as
"extensional" particular to health-care? "Who" said/observed/found/acted
"What", "When" and "Where" is surely a general notion. Does it need a
health-care model or ontology? Yes, particular findings or observations or
procedures can be of health but also of finance, indeed of most of
life. "Constantine boiled his wife in 326" talks of who, what and when.
Does Health-care need its own (closed-world) model for "observation" ("kill
method" == "boil") vs "finding" ("was the boiler") or "procedure" ("dunk
and hold down"). Just as we should avoid our own ontologies for
demographics (a provider's address is not different than the address of a
supermarket), shouldn't we avoid special handling for the likes of
"observe", "find", "act" and leave each domain concentrate on its
particular observations, findings et al? That is, SNOMED gets to be
health-special but what here is called the "extensional model", that is so
general (again, maybe I'm missing something), doesn't that belong with FOAF
et al?
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 15:11 -0700, Peter.Hendler@kp.org wrote:
> > [ . . . ] Can you use RDF in a closed world way when ever you want,
> > or is it only safe when the model you're dealing with, like FHIR,
> > really is known to be closed world?
> >
> I think so, provided that you understand that you are making the closed
> world assumption, i.e., that your results reflect only what you
> *currently* know.
>
> Almost every application makes the closed world assumption at some
> point.
>
>
> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 06:54:50 UTC