RE: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

Maybe in the light of the requirements 1 & 2 we can say that a FHIR resource instance, conformant to a profile, when transformed to RDF will be conformant to the OWL equivalent of the profile. Whether there is failure detection or not by OWL itself would be out of scope and could be validated by some rule language.

Tony


From: Sajjad Hussain [mailto:hussain@cs.dal.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 12:06 AM
To: Lloyd McKenzie; David Booth
Cc: Sajjad Hussain; w3c semweb HCLS; its@lists.hl7.org
Subject: Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology Requirements

I agree with Lloyd. However, we need to keep in mind that semantic web standard languages especially OWL rely on Open World Assumption (OWA):

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#StructureOfOntologies


For validation purposes, while respecting OWA, it is still possible validate data based on " Scoped Negation as Failure":

https://ai.wu.ac.at/~polleres/publications/poll-etal-2006b.pdf


Best,
Sajjad

******************************************

On 2/6/15 11:29 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
I expect we'll need to be able to handle both open-world and closed-world versions of the ontology.  Closed-world is essential to validation.  If a profile says something is 1..1 and the instance doesn't have it, then that needs to be flagged as an error, which open-world wouldn't do.  On the other hand, reasoners may well need to operate with some degree of open-world.  The fact something isn't present in the EHR doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.  I'd be happy for us to include something like this:

SHOULD: OWL ontology should allow expressions enforcing both closed world and open-world reasoning against instances.


Lloyd McKenzie
Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.

 E: lmckenzie@gevityinc.com<mailto:lmckenzie@gevityinc.com>
M: +1 587-334-1110<tel:1-587-334-1110>
W: gevityinc.com<http://gevityinc.com/>

GEVITY
Informatics for a healthier world

CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the exclusive use of its intended recipients. If you have received this communication by error, please notify the sender and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.

NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance positions

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:20 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org<mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
Hi Sajjad,

On 02/04/2015 07:12 AM, Sajjad Hussain wrote:
Hi All,

Responding to Action # 2 carried during last call:

http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02

<http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02>

I would suggest the following wording for FHIR Ontology Requirement # 11
(http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#11._Enable_Inference

<http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements>)

11. Enable Inference
(MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference with
monotonicity and open world assumption [1]
[1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/presentations/OWA.pdf<http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/presentations/OWA.pdf>
<http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/presentations/OWA.pdf>

I would expect the closed world assumption to be used quite a lot to  in data validation and perhaps other ways, so I would be uncomfortable having that as a MUST requirement.

David Booth
Best regards,
Sajjad

***************************************************

On 2/3/15 10:45 PM, David Booth wrote:
On today's call we almost finished working out our FHIR ontology
requirements.  Only two points remain to be resolved:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements


  - Sajjad suggested that the wording of requirement #11 be changed to
be clearer, and agreed to suggest new wording.  Current wording:
"Enable Inference: The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference."

 - Paul Knapp noted that requirement #16 is related to requirement #2,
and suggested that they might be merged.

We did not get to other agenda today.

The full meeting log is here:
http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html


Thanks!
David Booth



***********************************************************************************
Manage subscriptions - http://www.HL7.org/listservice

View archives - http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its

Unsubscribe - http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=lloyd@lmckenzie.com&list=its

Terms of use - http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules