I think that the core concept here is that RDF provides a common model for
representation of content at the conceptual or logical level <<as well as>> for
the serialized/wire format level, thereby focusing all interoperability issues
on semantics rather than technology barriers, semantic transformation impedance
as one moves from conceptual to implementation representations, or other
serialization "brittleness" such as what occurs with vanilla XML where it is
easy to produce two semantically equivalent conceptual/logical representations
that serialize differently and are therefore non-interoperable.
Starting with RDF or OWL representations of the HL7 RIM (actually the MIF since
you need data types and terminology bindings and there relationships to the RIM
as well as the RIM itself) enables the semantic standards expressed in the
"idiosyncratic formats" you mention then becomes an instance of RDF
representation drawn from an underlying RDF/OWL representation, i.e. we need to
base interoperability on the representation of standards in RDF. The
standards-derived artifacts then become focused on semantics rather than other
spurious issues.
The first version of the HL7 MIF in OWL is now available for comment,
criticism, evolution, and usage.
charlie
________________________________________
From: Sivaram Arabandi, MD [sivaram.araba...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:03 AM
To: RebholzSchuhmann
Cc: Joanne Luciano; David Booth; public-semweb-lifesci; Michel Dumontier; Conor
Dowling; Rafael Richards
Subject: Re: Opening Walled Gardens: RDF / Linked Data as the Universal
Exchange Language of Healthcare
Agree with this and want to add one more - this statement from the document:
"Meaningful Use currently mandates a patchwork of idiosyncratic
formats, such as HL7, CCD/ C32, CCR, NCPDP SCRIPT, C-CDA and QRDA. While such
formats provide a degree of machine processability, in comparison, RDF offers
significant advantages:"
- How can you compare RDF to these models? Surely you can serialize
data that conforms to these standards into RDF, no?
thanks
Sivaram
___________________________________
Sivaram Arabandi, MD, MS
ONTOPRO
www.ontopro.com
T 832.726.2322
E s.araba...@ontopro.com
Think Semantics. Tame Silos.
On Jan 15, 2013, at 6:58 AM, RebholzSchuhmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> don't know how someone reads this, who does not know all these benefits
> anyways. Reads as if you are selling RDF to somebody who knows half-way the
> benefits of RDF.
> It would have made sense to be more precise on the privacy and security
> issues. Neither RDF nor XML have been developed to address privacy /
> security, and either one is highly important in healthcare systems. Do you
> have even stronger arguments for privacy and security issues?
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -drs-
>
> On 15/01/2013 12:41, Joanne Luciano wrote:
>> Thanks for doing this.
>> Joanne
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 7:21 AM, David Booth<da...@dbooth.org> wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, here is the comment that Rafael, Michel, Conor and I submitted to
>>> the US government Office of the National Coordinator for Health
>>> Information Technology, in response to their RFC on "Meaningful Use"
>>> requirements, proposing RDF / Linked Data as a universal exchange
>>> language of healthcare:
>>> http://dbooth.org/2013/mu/MU-Stage3-RFC-Simple-Response.pdf
>>>
>>> Although it is too late to change that submitted comment (as the
>>> deadline was last night), we would still appreciate any feedback or
>>> suggestions for improvement, as I'm sure we will have to make these
>>> arguments and explanations many more times in the future.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>>> http://dbooth.org/
>>>
>>> Loss of web prodigy Aaron Swartz: http://tinyurl.com/ahe2k8c
>>>
>>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
>>> reflect those of his employer.
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> D. Rebholz-Schuhmann - mailto:d.rebholz.schuhm...@gmail.com
>
>
