Hi Adrian,Extending the client stub would be another way to expose a web service. Good thought.
Dan Adrian Walker wrote:
Hi Dan -- Thanks for your quick reply. You wrote....I'm sure someone would have to write the EJB...for teaching, it would be nice to expose a web service that a student could incorporate into a web service orchestration routine over the internet.Yes, that would be one approach. Another way is to let the IBL system [1] combined with SQL provide the business logic, and to extend the IBL client stub [2] as needed to expose a findable web service.Slide 17 of [3] illustrates this. How does that sound? Cheers, -- Adrian [1] Internet Business LogicA Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over SQL and RDF Online at www.reengineeringllc.com <http://www.reengineeringllc.com> Shared use is free[2] www.reengineeringllc.com/iblClient1.java <http://www.reengineeringllc.com/iblClient1.java>[3] www.reengineeringllc.com/WikiSOA.pdf <http://www.reengineeringllc.com/WikiSOA.pdf>Adrian Walker ReengineeringOn Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Dan Russler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:Looks interesting. I'll keep this in mind. Although I'm sure someone woud have to write the EJB...for teaching, it would be nice to expose a web service that a student could incorporate into a web service orchestration routine over the internet. Maybe this is a potential student project? Dan Adrian Walker wrote:Hi Again Dan -- You wrote: I like your use case...we need better tools for CQI of ontologies.. Please feel free to use the Internet Business System [1] for this and other purposes. As mentioned, shared use is free. We will be happy to assist. Best regards, -- Adrian [1] Internet Business Logic A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over SQL and RDF Online at www.reengineeringllc.com <http://www.reengineeringllc.com> Shared use is free Adrian Walker Reengineering Phone: USA 860 830 2085 On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Dan Russler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: Hi Adrian, I like your use case...we need better tools for CQI of ontologies...Dan Adrian Walker wrote:Hi Dan --Thanks for your thoughts about this.You wrote... If you used a modifier as you suggest below, you would need to modify many of the hundreds of thousands of assertions represented in an ontology like SNOMED. Actually, it seems that reasoning in executable English over SNOMED and other ontologies could be a useful way of addressing your point that ...it is impossible to create an ontology where everyone agrees with every belief stated. The executable English can be used to say things like "according to SNOMED this-type1 and this-type2 are closely related but not everyone agrees" Users can then get English explanations showing the pertinent entries in SNOMED, and showing who disagrees and why and for what purposes. How does that sound? If it's of interest, we can put up an example at [1] that folks can run using browsers. Scalability comes from automatically generating and running SQL from the executable English. The results are still explained in English. Cheers, -- Adrian [1] Internet Business Logic A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English over SQL and RDF Online at www.reengineeringllc.com <http://www.reengineeringllc.com> Shared use is free Adrian Walker Reengineering On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Dan Russler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: Hi Adrian, Belief is at the core of an ontology, not at the perphery as you suggest. For example, the belief that "Type 1 Diabetes" and "Type 2 Diabetes" both have a parent called "Diabetes" is a belief instantiated in the SNOMED hierarchy. Of course, this representation is frought with physiologic heresy (Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes are only related physiologically through a symptom, i.e. hyperglycemia, not through common causal phisiologic pathways). However, many people will argue that the belief is "true." Like most beliefs, one can argue that if the belief is traditional or pragmatic instead of strictly valid, it belongs in the ontology because it is accepted as "true" by many. However, it is impossible to create an ontology where everyone agrees with every belief stated. This situation isn't "wrong;" it is simply a fact of life in ontology development. If you used a modifier as you suggest below, you would need to modify many of the hundreds of thousands of assertions represented in an ontology like SNOMED. Dan Adrian Walker wrote: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 professionalsthat..." "a possibly useful hypothesis is that...." Then, English explanations can show the data andinferential 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, thereappears 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 triplebased 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 thatthere 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 Imisrepresented 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 neithera classCode nor a moodCode. [VK] Are there mathematical ways of describingthese "derivations" for e.g., by using operations such as instantiations and generalizations/specializations.Also, in the above, it's not clear what thesemantics 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 inKnowledge 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 supportthe 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 definedabove?<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 introducedabiove, The EAV/RDF triples layer could be layer 0, and the HL7/RIM layer could be layer 1Look forward to further brainstorming andfeedback on this.Cheers, ---VipulThe 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.
