Re: HL7 RIM Designtime OWL Runtime RDF

Monotonic reasoning is only the beginning here, not the end.

Jim


On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Sivaram Arabandi, MD <
sivaram.arabandi@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am enjoying reading and catching up on this thread.
>
> David, you mentioned 'rdf model' below - are you referring to ontology
> models?
>
> And, you said "To my mind, monotonicity is the key."  But in medicine most
> reasoning is non-monotonic  - default reasoning, (educated) guesses and
> revision of diagnosis as new data comes into the picture. What am I missing
> here?
>
> thanks,
> Sivaram
> ____________________________
> Sivaram Arabandi, MD, MS
> ONTOPRO
> www.ontopro.com
> Ph:  832.726.2322
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SivaramArabandi
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sivaram-arabandi/1/9ab/92a
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 08:39 -0800, Peter.Hendler@kp.org wrote:
> >> Eric et al,
> >> Is there any material on the idea of "design time OWL runtime RDF"?
> >>
> >> Is it Kosher, once you are done with your reasoners, to convert to RDF
> >> and then treat it as if it were closed world like a database?
> >
> > Absolutely.  Almost all applications use a closed world assumption at
> > some point.
> >>
> >> RIM which is OO, is of course closed world and can be represented in a
> >> database. Nothing can change, no new assertions can be made. When an
> >> HL7 message is sent, we assume it can't be changed by a reasoner or
> >> anything else. It is set in stone. In fact, there are laws. You are
> >> not allowed to edit a message once it's been sent.
> >>
> >> In open world, anyone can add to the triple store at any time, and
> >> meanings can change. But in an HL7 message, once you make the message,
> >> you are not allowed to amend or add to it.
> >
> > It should be monotonic, so even though all of the existing statements
> > still hold, additional statements may be true also.  When talking about
> > "changing" some data, it's important to distinguish between
> > (monotonically) adding more data to it and (non-monotonically) modifying
> > the existing data.
> >>
> >> On a related note.  We have different ways of expressing negation to
> >> Acts. Much of the complication comes from whether the negation is done
> >> in the vocabulary (SNOMED) or the OO part of the model (RIM).
> >> How can we tell if two different representations where the is negation
> >> expressed on different parts in the model, are semantically the same?
> >
> > Can you give an example?
> >>
> >> The terminology (SNOMED open world, OK to use reasoners) and the RIM
> >> (OO closed world) can not be mixed (I think).
> >
> > Why do you say that they cannot be mixed?  You do have to be careful to
> > know which data is making what closed world assumption.
> >
> >> But my question is this.
> >> Can you reduce the whole representation of the RIM part of the model
> >> and the terminology part (SNOMED) into one set of triples, and then
> >> could you reduce two  instances of the these mixed models to graphs of
> >> triplets that you can compare?
> >
> > In principle, yes, I think so.  But let me turn it around the other way.
> > I think it is important to design the RDF models such that they can be
> > mixed and instances can be compared.  If there are problems in doing so,
> > then we need to correct the models to fix them.
> >>
> >> If you did reduce/normalize the mixed model of the OO RIM and the EL+
> >> logic SNOMED into one set of triples.  Could you consider these, for
> >> your comparisons, as if they are closed world and simply compare the
> >> graph patterns?
> >>
> >> This is another way to ask.  At any point in the life of a model (HL7
> >> message or clinical statement for example), can you just declare "from
> >> this point forward, no one is allowed to add to or change this graph
> >> in any way", and then treat the whole graph as if it is closed world,
> >> even though at an earlier point in the graphs life cycle it did
> >> consist of SNOMED (open) and RIM (closed)?  Does it become closed by
> >> agreement not to add to it after it is final?
> >>
> > I think it is critical that the RDF models be designed to be monotonic,
> > so that you can always add more information without invalidating
> > previous information.  This means that you cannot just say something
> > like "Mary is pregnant".  It has to be qualified to a particular context
> > or time period, such as "On 1-Jan-2013 Mary's pregnancy test was
> > negative".  (Sorry for such an obvious example, but hopefully you see
> > what I mean.)
> >
> > To my mind, monotonicity is the key.  I normally think of "closed world"
> > and "open world" as being more about what you *do* with the data, than
> > being about the data itself.  If the data is designed to be monotonic,
> > then for specific uses you can use closed world reasoning.
> >
> > With all that said, I'm not certain that I'm really hitting on the
> > question that you're raising, so if you can show a more concrete example
> > it may help.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > David Booth, Ph.D.
> > http://dbooth.org/
> >
> > Loss of web prodigy Aaron Swartz: http://tinyurl.com/ahe2k8c
> >
> > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> > reflect those of his employer.
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-4436
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu