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

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

From: Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 13:56:35 +0000
To: "Peter.Hendler@kp.org" <Peter.Hendler@kp.org>, "michel.dumontier@gmail.com" <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>
CC: "david@dbooth.org" <david@dbooth.org>, "eric@w3.org" <eric@w3.org>, "cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com" <cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com>, "Rafael.Richards@va.gov" <Rafael.Richards@va.gov>, "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D5F9B7889182464788941B4EEDE3E81FD513AC0A@Awacs.esci.com>
Good to see you at the HL7 meeting.
There seem to be three approaches being worked in RDF

1.       The first is expressing the FHIR payload in RDF. The ontology is therefore the FHIR ontology. The discussion at HL7 was about making another representation of the payload in RDF.

2.       The second (which I have been working on) has a small sample in Protégé is to look at the ontologies of FHIR and Terminologies - particularly SNOMED CT and express them together in the same language - OWL so that the conflicts can be resolved. The binding from objects in FHIR to terms is fundamentally different from the FHIR payload and therefore more disruptive. In this approach, a higher ontology is critical - the RIM was a start but has quite a lot missing to form a good higher ontology and has nothing to do with healthcare (The RIM did not either). It looks as if you are going in this direction as well.

3.       The third which comes from the terminology side is to express post-coordinated terms as a code OWL expression in a FHIR message. This is a small scope but seems to have some importance to resolving the terminology issues.

These three approaches do not overlap or conflict as far as I can see.

Maybe there are two projects one which is aligned to represent FHIR and one which looks at the broader issue of Healthcare Ontology as you have described. I don't think the third deserves a project.

Tony Mallia

From: Peter.Hendler@kp.org [mailto:Peter.Hendler@kp.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:33 PM
To: michel.dumontier@gmail.com
Cc: david@dbooth.org; Anthony Mallia; eric@w3.org; cnanjo@cognitivemedicine..com; Rafael.Richards@va.gov; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: Re: Propose an HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic Interoperability?

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<mailto:michel.dumontier@gmail.com>>
To:        David Booth <david@dbooth.org<mailto:david@dbooth.org>>
Cc:        Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com<mailto:amallia@edmondsci.com>>, "Prud'hommeaux, Eric" <eric@w3.org<mailto:eric@w3.org>>, Claude Nanjo <cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com<mailto:cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com>>, "Richards, Rafael M. (Rafael.Richards@va.gov<mailto:Rafael.Richards@va.gov>)" <Rafael.Richards@va.gov<mailto:Rafael.Richards@va.gov>>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>>
Date:        05/13/2014 02:01 PM
Subject:        Re: Propose an HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic Interoperability?

  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.



Michel Dumontier
Associate Professor of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford University
Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest Group

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

Received on Thursday, 15 May 2014 20:48:12 UTC

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