W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > April 2016

Re: aligning medical.schema.org clinical with FHIR/RDF

From: Marc Twagirumukiza <twamarc@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:28:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAu2OTU=ycCeKDWgfCmu-Pmtmu0ubCu3d=UYA=wzzfN4ngXhUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Cc: "Solbrig, Harold R." <Solbrig.Harold@mayo.edu>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hi Eric

Yes we are progressing with improvement of schema.org medical related
vocabulary.

When we started this effort in 2013 the aim was ambitious: to align the
vocabulary with existing terminologies and medical ontologies.
At the very beginning we saw that we needed first to improve the existing
definitions and terms  and then to extend the vocab.

Now we have achieved the first step of improving definitions and model of
existing vocabulary.
This will be published in next release (
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2016Mar/0014.html)  and
we have called for a wide community review (see:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2016Mar/0011.html).

The next step is to extend the vocabulary. This will be guided by
community/APIs/User-case needs. So we invited the community to get involved
here.

We have something in pipeline, but this is very unofficial (please consider
it as my desk temp folder only)  and needs re-working: see
http://health.sdo-schemedex-0-1.appspot.com/MedicalEntity

The extension phase is also the opportunity to align with FHIR/RDF and FHIR
ontology and this is my personal target. I have been involved in both and I
see overlaps and a real win-win if we align both!

Of course I need to convince the rest of our driving WG (
https://www.w3.org/community/schemed)  and put this on the agenda. I have
also many other competing targets: clinical trials vocab; pharmacogenetics;
US HealthCare Insurance vocab, etc. So the priority will be driven by a
clear use-case to test and use the targeted extension.Of course whatever we
do, we will follow the authority of schema.org, philosophy, roadmap and
principles.

To align the two we have to discuss each other and determine the best way.
The current approach we are using is to use owl:equivalentClass, but
something like skos:* can also work but this needs a deep discussions. Am
happy to have this if we have active people to investigate such effort.

I would be happy to have the work done by Harold on this as well.

Let's keep interacting on this.

---
Best Regards

Marc Twagirumukiza

Sent from iPad Device
On 7 Apr 2016 17:49, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> I understand you're making progress on the clinical.schema.org. How
> much does that align with FHIR/RDF? I can imagine they some overlap in
> requirements. Since you're working on both, I thought you'd have some
> insight on whether they should be aligned and if so, how to do it?
>
> I know that one of Harold's contracts had him experiment with
> representing FHIR in schema.org. Perhaps he can share it so we can
> figure out what the alignment could look like and if it's a sensible
> goal.
> --
> -ericP
>
> office: +1.617.599.3509
> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
>
> (eric@w3.org)
> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> email address distribution.
>
> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
>
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2016 17:29:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:21:57 UTC