- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 20:44:24 -0400
- 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. David 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