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

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

From: Julian, Anthony J. <ajulian@mayo.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 12:49:17 +0000
Message-Id: <6e55ab$8oa8pt@ironport10.mayo.edu>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com>
Cc: Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>, Claude Nanjo <cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com>, "Prud'hommeaux, Eric" <eric@w3.org>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Richards, Rafael M. (Rafael.Richards@va.gov)" <Rafael.Richards@va.gov>, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
IMHO defining criteria to limit membership is counter to HL7 policy.  Members are free to join any work group except those groups chartered by the board or TSC.

Anthony Julian
Sent from my "smart" Phone
________________________________
From: David Booth<mailto:david@dbooth.org>
Sent: 5/14/2014 7:07
To: Marc Twagirumukiza<mailto:marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com>
Cc: Anthony Mallia<mailto:amallia@edmondsci.com>; Claude Nanjo<mailto:cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com>; Prud'hommeaux, Eric<mailto:eric@w3.org>; w3c semweb HCLS<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>; Richards, Rafael M. (Rafael.Richards@va.gov)<mailto:Rafael.Richards@va.gov>; Renato Iannella<mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com>
Subject: Re: Propose an HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic Interoperability?

Hi Marc,

I am new to HL7 processes, so I do not yet know what is the exact
procedure for forming and joining an HL7 work group, but I'm looking
into it.  Stan Huff, who now chairs the HL7 board, said he would let me
know.  I modeled the draft charter after other HL7 work group charters
that I found online, and they did not include those criteria, so I
assume that there are other documents -- perhaps standard across all HL7
work groups -- that cover those aspects.

Thanks,
David

On 05/14/2014 04:54 AM, Marc Twagirumukiza wrote:
> This is a nice initiative and would like joining the WG.
> Looking on the charter document, I wonder if it 's not necessary to
> define clearly who may (not) join the WG and define if there are
> eligible criteria.
>
> Kind Regards,
> *
> Marc Twagirumukiza | **Agfa HealthCare*
> Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
> T  +32 3444 8188 | M  +32 499 713 300
>
> http://www.agfahealthcare.com <http://www.agfahealthcare.com/>
> http://blog.agfahealthcare.com <http://blog.agfahealthcare.com/>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Click on link to read important disclaimer:
> http://www.agfahealthcare.com/maildisclaimer
>
>
>
> From:  David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> To:  Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
> 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:  14/05/2014 03:32
> Subject:    Re: Propose an HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic
> Interoperability?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Renato,
>
> On 05/13/2014 08:55 PM, Renato Iannella wrote:
>  >
>  > On 14 May 2014, at 00:54, David Booth <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.
>  >
>  > Have you considered operating this as a W3C Community Group (easy to
>  > start, more SW input..etc). And when there are some more concrete
>  > deliverables, take them to HL7 (or elsewhere) for official
>  > "standardisation".
>
> I think a key motivation is to start engaging the HL7 community on this.
>   I think the existing W3C HCLS group has done a good job in the W3C
> community, but I personally think it would be very helpful to start
> raising the visibility within HL7.  That's my take anyway.  I don't know
> if others might see it differently.
>
> Oh, I should have said, this is intended to be a HL7-W3C collaboration.
>   EricP was explaining on the call today that usually there are
> intellectual property (IP) policy issues in collaborating between
> standards organizations, but HL7 happens to have essentially the same IP
> policy as W3C, so we don't have that barrier in this case.
>
> David
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 12:49:41 UTC

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