meeting record COI call Tue 14 Feb

<http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-minutes>

                                      COI

11 Feb 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

Attendees

   Present
          Kerstin_Forsberg, ericP, +1.469.226.aaaa, [IPcaller], Mike_Denny

   Regrets
   Chair
          ericP

   Scribe
          Claude

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]ontology review
         2. [5]development strategy
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________________

ontology review

   Claude: reviewed josh's FHIR and O-RIM with an eye towards using it for
   clinical decision support
   ... wanted what could be leveraged for use in a CDS ontology
   ... RIM's need for interop lead to a closed model with many
   constraints.
   ... O-RIM's terminology is particular to RIM.
   ... I had planned on an ontology designed for a more open world
   ... using SKOS/DC rather than RIM
   ... the philosophy is a bit different:
   ... .. getting interop in key aspects of use cases leads to a very
   controlled expression which won't meet arbitrary new use cases.
   ... .. alternatively, design with a set of principles which can allow
   extenders to get interop when possible but still extend in new ways
   when needed
   ... O-RIM has lots of classes which are designed by intersection.

   ericP: right, RIM's real ontology code is in implementation guidelines
   which re-use the six for classes and the e.g. source/target constraints
   for particular ActRelationship codes
   ... alternative, e.g. frequency superProperty which is partitioned into
   basically incomaptible specialized frequencies

   Claude: for example, you could have an obs with multiple codes, but
   that confuses interop

   ericP: Standards are intended to reduce people's choices. The strength
   of the semantic web is that there is both a social and technical aspect
   to it. The technical aspect permits non-ambiguity. The social aspect
   allows one to leverage what exists on the web to develop their own
   ontologies.

development strategy

   ericP: The standard is released to meet some use cases but this has a
   very long tail. Because standards are slow to develop, you often take
   too long to get something in people's hands or the standard does not
   meet anyone's needs. By developing an ontology that is more open world,
   you can better address the long tail but you are less able to constrain
   this ontology.

   E.g., extensions of SKOS vocabularies for terminology. The problem with
   this approach is that it can become chaotic with people creating
   concepts that can no longer properly support inferencing or that are
   semantically inaccurate.

   Need some professional governance to ensure that there is some order in
   this process. There are systems that exist to support this. For
   instance, Web Protege, Drupal, etc....

   That is, encourage discussion among participants to support proper
   review of proposed concepts and relationships.

   To develop a CDS ontology could take many years, so an open world with
   crowd sourcing and review may reduce the chaos in this process.

   This may allow more flexibility in its development. However, some
   governance needs to be in place.

   E.g., someone proposes a concept. It is reviewed to ensure (1) it does
   not already exist, (2) it is semantically 'correct', (3) it is placed
   in its proper place in the hierarchy.

   Need to be concerned with the following:

   You may propose concepts but these need to be reviewed

   Write deviations from core or everyone collaborates to form ontology

   This requires sufficient expertise among the reviewer to ensure that
   the ontology is sound.

   That the ontology is inferenceable

   Group collaborates to define the ontology

   Another group (the 'board') validates and 'approves' the changes.

   UMLS has website that allows folks to propose concepts/synonyms and
   then these are reviewed and possibly incorporated.

   UMLS is versioned and different versions may hold a different set of
   concepts.

   Problem arises during splitting of concepts.

   It forces folks to identify where concept is used and which new one
   should be used if they decide to adopt this version of the terminology.

   Claude: if you look at HL7's coded value, you have:
      rim:Act.code [
      
          hl7:coding [ dt:CDCoding.code "48765-2" ; dt:CDCoding.codeSystem "2.16.840.1
      .113883.6.1" ;
                       dt:CDCoding.displayName "ALLERGIES, ADVERSE REACTIONS, ALERTS"
      ; dt:CDCoding.codeSystemName "LOINC" ]
      ];
        see [7]example from C-CDA in O-RIM

   ... this could easily be represented as an extension to skos
   ... the disease hierarchy in SNOMED has e.g. broader, narrower, related
   ... (potential transitive)
   ... emphasema narrowerThan lungDisease narrowerThan disease.
   ... vs. emphasema relatedTo smoking
   ... so use skos as a core with a set of extensions validated by domain
   experts as being correct and meeting valuable use cases [bang for the
   buck]
   ... so when you working with this, you're extending a solid,
   well-thought-out core

   kirsten: important to work toghether with existing standards orgs
   ... in bioportal, we're working with an old version of MeDRA because we
   didn't push the skos back

   Some ontologies were very pure but do not meet any use cases. More
   concrete ontologies that meet particular use cases may thus be favored.

   Some ontologies are more arcane but they are arcane because they needed
   to solve a particular challenge that a cleaner ontology may not have
   anticipated.

   The 'agile' vs 'waterfall' - build around the use cases vs build to
   meet a theoretical optimum but without field validation.

   Core ontology for key clinical concepts such as observation, procedure,
   etc...

   Data types

   Some key libraries

   At the bottom are ontologies for each of the therapeutic areas

   They are basically subclasses of observations, assessments, etc... but
   they are particular to the domain - e.g., more 'Detailed Clinical
   Models'

   They reside in the therapeutic ontology

   Some of these concepts may be leveraged by other ontologies for
   different purposes

   This process may break things as concepts are moved from one ontology
   to another but allows a healthy 'refactoring' over time.

   Progressive elaboration could really benefit a CDS ontology.

   Need to write documentation for our implementation and have people
   reuse ontology and governance model. This will encourage FDA to enhance
   their ontologies with additional Therapeutic Areas.

   <mike_denny> Request to group members: I am preparing a rationale
   statement for including RDF/OWL provisions in a healthcare information
   system. I am trying to pull together a fairly exhaustive list of where
   RDF and OWL are being used today in healthcare related applications,
   tools, services, research initiatives, or other resources. If you aware
   of any listings or specific examples that you can point me toward,
   please forward to msdenny@mitre.org or the HCLS fo[CUT]

   <ericP> [8]http://code.google.com/p/cpr-ontology/

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [9]scribe.perl version 1.138
    ([10]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-02-14 09:58:46 $
     __________________________________________________________________

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11
Check for newer version at [11]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Claude
Inferring Scribes: Claude
Default Present: Kerstin_Forsberg, ericP, +1.469.226.aaaa, [IPcaller], Mike_Denn
y
Present: Kerstin_Forsberg ericP +1.469.226.aaaa [IPcaller] Mike_Denny

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 11 Feb 2014
Guessing minutes URL: [12]http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-minutes.html
People with action items:

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.



   [End of [13]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

References

   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-irc
   3. http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-minutes#agenda
   4. http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-minutes#item01
   5. http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-minutes#item02
   6. http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-minutes#ActionSummary
   7. http://www.w3.org/2013/C-CDA/IJ.xml
   8. http://code.google.com/p/cpr-ontology/
   9. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  10. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
  11. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
  12. http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-minutes.html
  13. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 10:00:40 UTC