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

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

From: Marc Twagirumukiza <marc.twagirumukiza@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:16:43 +0200
To: amallia@edmondsci.com
Cc: "cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com" <cnanjo@cognitivemedicine.com>, "david@dbooth.org" <david@dbooth.org>, "eric@w3.org" <eric@w3.org>, "michel.dumontier@gmail.com" <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>, "Peter.Hendler@kp.org" <Peter.Hendler@kp.org>, "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Rafael.Richards@va.gov" <Rafael.Richards@va.gov>
Message-ID: <OFCA62261A.440DA19C-ONC1257CDA.00299D13-C1257CDA.002DA408@agfa.com>
Dear Anthony,
Do you know where we can find documentation/resources about the ongoing 
work  FHIR ontology ?

Kind Regards,

Marc Twagirumukiza | Agfa HealthCare
Senior Clinical Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
T  +32 3444 8188 | M  +32 499 713 300



Click on link to read important disclaimer: 

From:   Anthony Mallia <amallia@edmondsci.com>
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" 
Date:   15/05/2014 22:50
Subject:        RE: Propose an HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic 

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; 
Subject: Re: Propose an HL7 work group on RDF for Semantic 
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 

  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 
Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest 

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:54 AM, 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.  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 (Cambridge, MA)
VoIP address: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
Participant Access Code: 4257 ("HCLS")
IRC: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #HCLS


Received on Friday, 16 May 2014 08:17:16 UTC

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