- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 22 Apr 2002 15:24:20 -0500
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 14:12, Jonathan Borden wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > So the cyclic structure above isn't entailed, under > > Jeremy's axioms. So what? What do I, as a real-world > > user, lose? > > How about, from my perspective as a real-world user, working in a real-world > problem domain that currently uses description logic based classifications > (e.g. SNOMED-RT, etc). > > Suppose there exists a disease which is defined as a cyclic structure. ?? Er... that's begging the question. No fair. I don't expect cyclic structures to come up in normal stuff at all. Please explain why you think cyclic structures will be necessary to define (?) a disease. > Suppose I have an individual defined by a set of facts, and these facts > support the classification of the individual as being in the class of > patients having the disease. > > It would be really really great if, after going to all this work to develop > this disease classification system, the classifier were able to tell me that > a patient having all the pathognomonic symptoms of a disease actually has > this diagnosis. > > So what I would stand to lose is that what we do would not be applicable to > the 200,000 - 400,000 term ontologies created and in clinical use -- not to > say the least making inferences _across_ different healthcare ontologies > e.g. MeSH, CPT, ICD, SNOMED, GALEN etc. > > (Figuring this out in an iterative fashion would take something approaching > infinite time). > > Jonathan -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 16:25:27 UTC