Re: Yosemite Manifesto on RDF as a Universal Healthcare Exchange Language

> All;
> "No data arrangement is forced on you when you expose what you have" - i
> disagree. the very act of exposure presumes a model, presumes rules of
> exposure, and relationships in that exposure.
>

all publication is designed with a consumer in mind - well, if you want an
artifact to be used it should be. In our case, the consumer may be someone
who wants fast triple store access in SPARQL (a terminology in a normalized
SKOS representation) or may be a classification program (OWL, rigor, lists,
stuff hard for SPARQL but mother's milk for classifiers) or ... A dataset
may use common (foaf, skos, ...) or custom predicates which may or may not
specialize commonly-held notions. Like a browser on the web of documents, a
consumer may only be able to process some "tags" but not others.

This is not normal "standards-based publication" where every t is cross, i
is dotted - "you can have any car color as long as it's black". There will
be, for any widely used information, many published forms, just as many as
there are types of consumer. RDF allows this - it's designed for this world
of many forms with many, overlapping semantics and rather than powerpoint
and papers, practice and widespread-use will narrow down counterproductive
multiplicity.

At SemTech the Google guy was very clear that they had to iterate on data
nuance - for instance, "sameas" is an issue for them as it is for all of
us. There is no always-right data arrangement. Now Google has its own
"RDF", it's own tools and data management media. Hopefully RDF let's us do
similar (better?) work in the open, in a commonly agreed medium,

Conor


> this is the data about the data that explains the data (the meta meta meta
> data) RDF exposes only a few rules and only a few relationships. so you can
> have a freer model to express yourself. BUT it comes at a price. you have
> to first embed the model into RDF. ie tell RDF what rules and relationships
> will be followed above those implied by RDF.
>
> leaving any level out (and many do) leaves us with a collection of
> disconnected facts - a list of words.
>
> my argument has been that RDF should be timeless. new entries should have
> the ability to be entered in real time.  parsing a file to find the right
> spot within the proper collection defeats the real strengths of RDF. the
> "model" can be imposed on the facts (on the facts thus far collected) at
> any time. if new relationships are entered RDF should have the ability to
> re-establish the "model" (the model thus far collected)
>
> Paul Alagna - 732 322 5641
> pjalagna@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:41 PM, carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> sentiments that you agree with
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Conor Dowling <conor-dowling@caregraf.com>
> Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Yosemite Manifesto on RDF as a Universal Healthcare Exchange
> Language
> To: Peter.Hendler@kp.org
> Cc: brunni@netestate.de, david@dbooth.org, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org,
> semantic-web@w3.org
>
>
> (David - correct me if I'm wrong here).
>
> The emphasis of the health-care sessions at SemTech was on RDF to "*surface
> your semantics*" (Charlie Mead's phrase), as one medium for *both data
> and schema*.
>
> No data arrangement is forced on you when you expose what you have. As
> David said at SemTech, "RDF is schema-promiscuous". If you want to overlay
> RIM-based ontologies, then that's for you as either consumer or publisher.
>
> So the goal here is NOT to solve the world's semantic issues - it's to
> surface them in an excellent "links and labels" medium. No more RRF, RF2,
> XML this or that for data, CDA or otherwise vs a separate medium (UML) for
> schemas - one medium, RDF, for everything. That alone is a great step
> forward.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM, <Peter.Hendler@kp.org> wrote:
>
>> And everyone makes there own SNOMED and HL7.  I don't know.  We all
>> basically agreed to "a model" when making SNOMED. It would never have
>> worked if everyone could make their own roles.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *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:        Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>
>> To:        Peter Hendler/CA/KAIPERM@KAIPERM
>> Cc:        david@dbooth.org, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org,
>> semantic-web@w3.org
>> Date:        06/07/2013 11:01 AM
>> Subject:        Re: Yosemite Manifesto on RDF as a Universal Healthcare
>> Exchange Language
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Peter,
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:44:55AM -0700, Peter.Hendler@kp.org wrote:
>> > We'll still argue about whether we use SNOMED roles, make HL7 rim
>> classes
>> > and roles or openEHR or something else.
>>
>> Asking for a single extensive ontology about the world - or even about a
>> limited subject - that suits all needs is a bit naive.
>>
>> The nice thing about RDF is that you can have all of them in a single
>> triple
>> store, map them onto each other and make up your own roles if none of them
>> suit you.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael Brunnbauer
>>
>> --
>> ++  Michael Brunnbauer
>> ++  netEstate GmbH
>> ++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
>> ++  81379 München
>> ++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
>> ++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
>> ++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
>> ++  http://www.netestate.de/
>> ++
>> ++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
>> ++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
>> ++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
>> ++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> President Berkeley Underwater Search & Rescue
> Principal Wellness Intelligence Institute
> Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
> Cell (usa) (732) 497-CARL {2275}
>
>
>