Dan --
You wrote
How does one bring belief into a model, e.g. realism,
creationism, etc?
One way of doing this is to write a layer of knowledge as rules
in executable English. The rules can conclude things like
"it is currently the view of US health professionals that..."
"a possibly useful hypothesis is that...."
Then, English explanations can show the data and inferential
evidence for the conclusions.
There's a kind of Wiki for executable English that supports
this. It's online at the site below, and shared use is free.
The English vocabulary is open, and so to a large extent is the
syntax. Some background is in [1,2].
Apologies to folks who have seen this before, and thanks for
comments.
-- Adrian
[1] www.reengineeringllc.com/ibldrugdbdemo1.htm
<http://www.reengineeringllc.com/ibldrugdbdemo1.htm> (Flash
video with audio)
[2]
www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf
<http://www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf>
Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English
over SQL
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
<http://www.reengineeringllc.com> Shared use is free
Adrian Walker
Reengineering
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Dan Russler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hi Vipul,
Peter is right that the term "EAV" is a data schema
implementation model, even though it maps directly to a
classic proposition model with subject, predicate, and object
of the predicate.
Layer 0 then would be the most abstract layer consisting
purely of formal propositions. In this layer, some
propositions may express relationships between one or two
other propositions, but otherwise, no grouping of
propositions (classes) nor inheritance are characteristic of
this layer.
Peter brings up a good point about the need to deal with
belief and values in the model. After all, an ontology is
really a belief system asserted by one or more people. How
does one bring belief into a model, e.g. realism,
creationism, etc?
Regarding your note below on Layer 2...The question is
whether there are finer layers of distinction between level 1
and layer 2 (before one actually creates instances that apply
to individual patients)?
Dan
Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
Dan and Peter,
Based on conversations on this topic, there appears to be
consensus of the need for multi-layered knowledge
representation schemes
for heatlhcare. Will be great if we could brainstorm and
come to some sort of consensus on these "layers". Would like
to propose a
strawman as enumerated below.
Layer 0 = Entity - Attribute - Value or RDF triple based
rerpesentations.
Layer 1 = MetaClasses, e.g., Observation as in HL7/RIM
Layer 2 = Classes in a Patient Model, Document Models, etc,
e.g., the class of HbA1c results for a class of Patients.
Layer 3 = Data that are instances of Classes, e.g., a
particular HbA1c result for a patient John...
As per your e-mail, you seem to be suggesting that there is
something in between Layer 1 and Layer 2. However, please
note that Layer 2 consists
of classes of assertions in the patient record and not
instances.
More reespnses are embedded in the e-mail below.
<dan> With apologies to Peter in case I misrepresented your
SOA presentation...Last week, Peter Elkin of Mayo Clinic
delivered a presentation where he called the HL7 RIM a
"first order ontology" because of the abstraction level of
the RIM. He called the models derived from the RIM, e.g.
analytic models, patient care document models like CDA, etc,
"second order ontology" because they add a layer of
concreteness to the abstractions of the RIM, i.e. an object
with classCode of observation and moodCode of order becomes
an "observation order object" with neither a classCode nor a
moodCode.
[VK] Are there mathematical ways of describing these
"derivations" for e.g., by using operations such as
instantiations and generalizations/specializations.
Also, in the above, it's not clear what the semantics of an
"observation order" object is?
For e.g., observations and orders are semantically distinct
concepts, so in some sense an observation order class is
likely to be unsatisfiable?
The semantics of "moodCode" is not clear in Knowledge
Representation terms. For instance, do various mood codes
partition the instances of a class
into subclasses that are possbily mutually disjoint?
Finally, the coding systems themselves support the
concreteness of a "third order ontology." For example, the
SNOMED concept becomes an object itself without a code
attribute, moodCode attribute, or classCode attribute, e.g.
a WBC order. />
[VK] One way of looking at a Snomed code is that it defines
a class (e.g., blood pressure) of all the instances of blood
pressure readings which would imply that it belongs to Layer
2 as defined above?
<dan> see above for the "first order to third order
model." Your metaclass looks like Peter's "first
order ontology." However, your "instances" get
introduced too early...your "instances" point to
actual medical record assertions, and Peter's model
suggests that there is more "in between." In
Peter's model, the actual medical record assertion
would be an instance of his "third order ontology." />
[VK] Agree. As per the layering introduced above,
Layer 2 would correspond to classes of assetions
and Layer 3 would correspond to actual instances or
assertions.
<dan> I completely agree that the HL7 RIM is one
level more "concrete" than the earlier EAV models.
The EAV model represents the ultimate in
abstraction, similar to RDF triples. Perhaps Peter
would be more correct to say that EAV is a "first
order ontology" and that the HL7 RIM is a "second
order ontology." />
[VK] Agree: As per layering introduced abiove,
The EAV/RDF triples layer could be layer 0, and
the HL7/RIM layer could be layer 1
Look forward to further brainstorming and feedback
on this.
Cheers,
---Vipul
The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only
for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this
information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and
properly dispose of this information.
