Good discussion on this thread...And timely...since more advanced
business process orchestrations for web services and other internet
technologies are penetrating the market. This gives an opportunity for
newer implementation technologies like OWL and RDF to enhance the
execution of business processes over the Internet.
On model-based development and its relationship to the HL7
RIM...Remember that the RIM is not expressed at its core as XML. The HL7
RIM is based at its core on two symbols, one for physical entities and
one for the processes or activities that modify physical entities or
capture the state of physical entities at a given point at time. The use
of these two symbols in the HL7 RIM is especially valuable in the modern
IT environment, which focuses on more easily manipulating business
processes for cost and quality improvement and on increasing
accountability for people's actions.
How the values in a given instance are associated with these two symbols
in a particular implementation, whether the rather old-fashioned XML ITS
of CDA and V3 messages or more modern XML implementations like RDF or
OWL, or better implementations than RDF and OWL can support in the
future are really just features of the decade we work in...These two
symbols in the RIM trace back to to 8000 BC. Whatever we call them,
under what language name we call them, won't change the world of
physical entities and processes that we are representing.
So to make this discussion valuable, we should be discussing how to make
the transition from older XML ITS to more modern XML ITS(s), optimized
for the business processes they are intended to support. We need to
continue to improve the ability for implementation technology to support
model-based technology. But we shouldn't get confused by assuming that
the implementation technology is the same thing as the model, as I've
seen in some of the discussion on this thread regarding the core HL7 model.
Dan
On 12/17/2010 2:47 AM, dirk.cola...@agfa.com wrote:
I want to comment on:
<<i also agree, in a sense, with this. HL7 messages capture
information as a
whole, as an entity, so in that representation it is also true that
semantic
web technologies would have a hard time, as is, making sense of them
because
semantic web technologies wants a fact by fact representation, e.g. triple
store.>>
This is not really true. Separate triples in a file/message/document
are logical ANDs, they belong together as an entity. Moreover, you can
link different elements with properties, which are again separate
triples. So, OWL, certainly OWL Full is perfectly capable of capturing
any chunk of instance data.
Dirk Colaert
Afga HealthCare
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Van: *Michael Miller [mmil...@systemsbiology.org]
* Verzonden: *2010-12-15 08:47 PST
* Aan: *peter.hend...@kp.org; twcl...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
* Cc: *public-semweb-life...@w3.org; public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org
* Onderwerp: *RE: Wait a sec...What about the HL7 RIM An Universal
Exchange Language
hi all,
"unambiguous identifier for "things""
i agree, this has been a known issue for many years (as you well know,
tim) but its importance is just now growing as multi-omics studies and
sharing of EHR records is becoming more common.
"It is HL7 V3"
i also agree, in a sense, with this. HL7 messages capture information
as a whole, as an entity, so in that representation it is also true
that semantic web technologies would have a hard time, as is, making
sense of them because semantic web technologies wants a fact by fact
representation, e.g. triple store.
as a software developer i've found both view points useful depending
on the task at hand. some applications present themselves as better
able to relate entities as a whole with each other (typical OO
designs) where as others that want to relate entities to each other to
discover similarities and differences lend themselves to the semantic
web approach. yes, one can try to force semantic web technologies on
applications that involve live workflow pipelines and one could write
applications to try and search over HL7 XML formats and they would
work to some degree but i think there is a place for both approaches.
i also feel that it wouldn't be hard to present HL7 messages as
meaningful triple stores, especially since they make extensive use of
controlled vocabularies.
cheers,
michael
*From:* public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org
<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org>
[mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org
<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org>] *On Behalf Of
*peter.hend...@kp.org <mailto:peter.hend...@kp.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:18 AM
*To:* ma...@illuminae.com <mailto:ma...@illuminae.com>
*Cc:* public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>;
public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org
<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org>;
twcl...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:twcl...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
*Subject:* Wait a sec...What about the HL7 RIM An Universal Exchange
Language
The PCAST did not take into consideration (maybe they don't even know)
there is an universal exchange language for healthcare. It is HL7 V3.
The CDA is merely one of virtually infinite structures that can be
constructed from the RIM. The meta information as well as the
clinical data is unambiguously represented by RIM. There is no reason
to ignore the thousands of man years that went into designing the RIM.
The RIM Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA) work group at HL7
has had many demonstrations of RIM based applications. We don't need
to re invent the wheel. CDA is only one particular RIM structure
designed for one particular use case. Those of us who have been
working at HL7 for years are blown away by the suggestion that there
needs to be a different wheel invented.
*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.
*Mark <ma...@illuminae.com <mailto:ma...@illuminae.com>>*
Sent by: public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org
<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-requ...@w3.org>
12/14/2010 06:44 PM
To
"Tim Clark" <twcl...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
<mailto:twcl...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
cc
public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org <mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Subject
Re: An Universal Exchange Language
But seriously, Tim, if we were to pursue this problem, we would need some
form of unambiguous identifier for "things"... and given the distributed
nature of the biomedical domain, we'd want to make sure that there was
some way of resolving that identifier to obtain metadata about it from a
variety of disparate sources who might have very different information -
clinical, molecular, demographic, etc...
hmmmm....