I agree with Lloyd. However, we need to keep in mind that semantic web
standard languages especially OWL rely on Open World Assumption (OWA):
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#StructureOfOntologies
For validation purposes, while respecting OWA, it is still possible
validate data based on " Scoped Negation as Failure":
https://ai.wu.ac.at/~polleres/publications/poll-etal-2006b.pdf
Best,
Sajjad
******************************************
On 2/6/15 11:29 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
I expect we'll need to be able to handle both open-world and
closed-world versions of the ontology. Closed-world is essential to
validation. If a profile says something is 1..1 and the instance
doesn't have it, then that needs to be flagged as an error, which
open-world wouldn't do. On the other hand, reasoners may well need to
operate with some degree of open-world. The fact something isn't
present in the EHR doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. I'd be
happy for us to include something like this:
SHOULD: OWL ontology should allow expressions enforcing both closed
world and open-world reasoning against instances.
*Lloyd McKenzie
*Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.
E: lmcken...@gevityinc.com <mailto:lmcken...@gevityinc.com>
M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>
W: gevityinc.com <http://gevityinc.com/>
*GEVITY
**/Informatics for a healthier world /*
CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the
exclusive use of its intended recipients. If you have received this
communication by error, please notify the sender and delete the
message without copying or disclosing it*.*
NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions
expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer, my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance
positions
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:20 PM, David Booth <da...@dbooth.org
<mailto:da...@dbooth.org>> wrote:
Hi Sajjad,
On 02/04/2015 07:12 AM, Sajjad Hussain wrote:
Hi All,
Responding to Action # 2 carried during last call:
http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02
<http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02>
I would suggest the following wording for FHIR Ontology
Requirement # 11
(http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#11._Enable_Inference
<http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements>)
11. Enable Inference
(MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference with
monotonicity and open world assumption [1]
[1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/presentations/OWA.pdf
<http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/presentations/OWA.pdf>
<http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/presentations/OWA.pdf>
I would expect the closed world assumption to be used quite a lot
to in data validation and perhaps other ways, so I would be
uncomfortable having that as a MUST requirement.
David Booth
Best regards,
Sajjad
***************************************************
On 2/3/15 10:45 PM, David Booth wrote:
On today's call we almost finished working out our FHIR
ontology
requirements. Only two points remain to be resolved:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements
- Sajjad suggested that the wording of requirement #11
be changed to
be clearer, and agreed to suggest new wording. Current
wording:
"Enable Inference: The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS
inference."
- Paul Knapp noted that requirement #16 is related to
requirement #2,
and suggested that they might be merged.
We did not get to other agenda today.
The full meeting log is here:
http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html
Thanks!
David Booth
***********************************************************************************
Manage subscriptions - http://www.HL7.org/listservice
View archives - http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its
Unsubscribe -
http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=ll...@lmckenzie.com&list=its
Terms of use -
http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules
