Re: RDF Schema / LODD mapping -- Re: New proposal: health & medical extensions to schema.org

On Tue May 22 09:34:13 GMT-400 2012, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
wrote:

> On 22 May 2012 16:20, Aaron Brown <abbrown@google.com> wrote:
> > On Tue May 22 00:15:04 GMT-400 2012, Renato Iannella
> > <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22 May 2012, at 10:05, Aaron Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> The schema wasn't designed with that use case in mind -- it's focused
> on
> >> marking up public information on the web for search use cases, not for
> >> coding or exchange of clinical data. It might be extensible to a
> version of
> >> that use case, if complemented with requirements for use of
> well-defined
> >> coding systems tied to external enumerations (like ICD or Snomed,
> RxNorm,
> >> etc). But it'd probably be better to use a purpose-built representation
> for
> >> clinical data transfer, like HL7 CDA / CCD or CCR, coupled with a
> >> patient-readable form of the discharge notes; standards like these
> offer
> >> greater precision in the specification of clinical data.
> >>
> >>
> >> It would be useful to add this design constraint to the introduction
> (at
> >> the moment it says "The scope of this schema is broad…")
> >
> >
> > Sure. That comment was intended to be about the scope of entities
> covered,
> > not the scope of use, as I had assumed that folks would be looking at
> this
> > in the context of schema.org<https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://schema.org>,
> which is about web markup. I'll clarify in my
> > next set of updates.
> >
> >>
> >> And perhaps define MedicalEntity as disjoint from Person ;-)
> >
> >
> > Not sure I understand where the confusion is here...Person is a separate
> > type under Thing, so they should be disjoint by definition.
>
> We don't say anything like that at a schema.org<https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://schema.org>level. Sometimes
> classes have common members, sometimes they don't. If you want us to
> record inter-class disjointness relationships within schema.org<https://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://schema.org>we can
> look into that, but for now don't assume it "comes out of the box"
> with different Thing subclasses being automatically considered
> disjoint.
>
> Ok. But I still don't see why this needs to be specified explicitly.
Otherwise, wouldn't it also be necessary to specify that a MedicalEntity is
disjoint from a Movie, a SocialEvent, a DryCleaningOrLaundry, etc? It seems
to get out of hand pretty quickly. For that matter, if someone wanted to
extend the proposed schema by defining a Physician type that inherits from
both Person and MedicalEntity, I think would be OK.

--Aaron


> cheers,
>
> Dan
>