W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Propose an HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic Interoperability?

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 20:44:24 -0400
Message-ID: <5372BC68.8060000@dbooth.org>
To: Peter.Hendler@kp.org, michel.dumontier@gmail.com
CC: amallia@edmondsci.com, eric@w3.org, cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com, Rafael.Richards@va.gov, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Hi Peter,

Thanks for your comments.  Yes, work like yours is definitely part of 
the motivation behind this!  And for sure, the intent is *not* to create 
new models in RDF, but the opposite: to expose *existing* models as RDF, 
so that RDF can act as a common semantic substrate across whatever 
models we have.  As we all know, merely representing existing models in 
RDF will not achieve interoperability -- model alignment is needed for 
that -- but it is the first step.


On 05/13/2014 05:33 PM, Peter.Hendler@kp.org wrote:
> We are in fact doing just that at Kaiser on a small experimental scale.
> We are working with Oxford and RDFox and creating an HL7 "RIM Like
> model".  It is not the full RIM but is Entities in Roles Participating
> in Acts.
> I think it would be a mistake to try to put the whole RIM into RDF.
>   Also I'm not a fan of a de novo RDF model that is not based on
> Entities in Roles Participating in Acts, It would then just be an
> arbitrary other model.  You could put FIHR to RDF but I see little
> reason for it.  Since RDF is wide open (almost like saying lets do
> something in XML) you really have to think about what the model is based
> on before you start.  You've only got V2 (no good for RDF) RIM (much too
> big for RDF) and FIHR (not much advantage to RDF for this).
> With our "RIM like" model based on Entities in Roles that Participate in
> Acts, we expect to be able to run useful safety and outcome reports.
>   Also we use SNOMED so the ontology of SNOMED will be tightly coupled
> to our model, but our model will not be an extension of the SNOMED model.
> I'd be disappointed to see HL7 create a brand new model in RDF that is
> not based on Entities in Roles Participating in Acts.
> *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.
> From:  Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>
> To:  David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> Cc:  Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>, "Prud'hommeaux, Eric"
> <eric@w3.org>, Claude Nanjo <cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com>, "Richards,
> Rafael M. (Rafael.Richards@va.gov)" <Rafael.Richards@va.gov>, w3c semweb
> HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> Date:  05/13/2014 02:01 PM
> Subject:    Re: Propose an HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic
> Interoperability?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> David,
>    I'm excited about the prospect, but I think the work group may be a
> bit too broad without further refinement. I'd like to see a charter
> articulated with a more specific focus, and identifying milestones that
> deliver concrete outcomes (specifications, implementations, reports)
> around targeted areas of urgent need.
>   More importantly, I'd like to know what the uptake will be (e.g. who
> will implement this), and how plans on using it.
> Cheers,
> m.
> Michel Dumontier
> Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford
> University
> Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest
> Group
> _http://dumontierlab.com_ <http://dumontierlab.com/>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:54 AM, David Booth <_david@dbooth.org_
> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
> I was at the HL7 meetings last week, and the idea arose of proposing an
> HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic Interoperability.  I took the
> initiative to draft a possible charter.  I meant to send it out earlier
> in case folks would like to discuss the idea on our 11:00am Eastern HCLS
> call today.  Attached is what I've drafted.  I'll join the call and see
> if anyone wants to discuss it.  Sorry for the late notice.
> Zakim (W3C teleconference bridge).
> Dial-In #: _+1.617.761.6200_ <tel:%2B1.617.761.6200> (Cambridge, MA)
> VoIP address: _sip:zakim@voip.w3.org_ <mailto:sip%3Azakim@voip.w3.org>
> Participant Access Code: 4257 ("HCLS")
> IRC: _irc.w3.org_ <http://irc.w3.org/> port 6665 channel #HCLS
> Thanks,
> David
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 00:44:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:21:39 UTC