I have listed the proposed wordings for requirement #11 that I have seen
so far:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#11._Enable_Inference
[[
#11. Enable Inference
Option A: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference.
Option B: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference with
monotonicity and open world assumption.
Option C: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference under
the open world assumption. However, some uses of the ontology may
require use of the closed world assumption.
Option D: (SHOULD) The FHIR ontology should allow expressions enforcing
both closed world and open-world reasoning against instances.
Option E: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must allow expressions enforcing
either closed world or open-world reasoning against instances.
Option F: Drop this requirement
]]
This includes option C that I just added.
If anyone has any other suggested wording changes for this or any other
requirement, please propose them now so that we can finalize them on
tomorrow's teleconference.
Thanks,
David
On 02/07/2015 03:00 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
Hi Rob,
It was working just fine for minimum cardinality. If you have a rule
that says "must have at least one" and your instances says "I'm a
subclass of the things that have exactly zero", the validator will
detect the error. And we can do that because we know exactly what
elements can potentially be allowed and can thus assert what has a
cardinality of zero if they're missing from the instance.
*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 Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Robert Hausam <rrhau...@gmail.com
<mailto:rrhau...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Lloyd, that's certainly correct with the "upper bound", given the
conditions that you describe. If an instance has 5 of "something"
when it's declared that it should have 4, then the reasoner can
clearly determine that the instance is invalid. However, using OWA,
you can't do this for the "lower bound" of cardinality, as there
always may be another "something" out there that the reasoner is not
aware of. I'm sure that we all know all of this, but it definitely
makes validating integrity constraints using pure OWL in many cases
either difficult or impossible.
I've found this discussion of the issue from Clark&Parsia to be useful:
http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/icv/
This is obviously referring to a proprietary solution (their Pellet
reasoner and the ICV extension), and certainly there are other
techniques and options available. But I think this does frame the
issue and some potential solutions for it pretty well.
So, getting back to the ontology requirements, I think we clearly
will need to be able to use *both* the open and closed world
assumptions, so maybe we should say that we *MUST* be able to do
both? - something like:
MUST: OWL ontology will allow expressions enforcing either closed
world or open-world reasoning against instances.
Rob
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Lloyd McKenzie <ll...@lmckenzie.com
<mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>> wrote:
Hi Tony,
If you declare an instance has 4 of something, that those
instances are disjoint and that the instance is a subclass of
those instances that allow only 3 of something, the reasoner
*should* declare the instance invalid. Certainly I was able to
get that happening w/ Protege when I used that approach with the
RIM.
Lloyd
*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 Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Anthony Mallia
<amal...@edmondsci.com <mailto:amal...@edmondsci.com>> wrote:
Lloyd,____
This is the pattern that is used by TopQuadrant in its XSD
to OWL conversion and the FHIR generation was shared by
Cecil. The advantage of this mechanism is that all
subclasses of Patient also are subclasses of the Anonymous
Ancestor which is the Class Expression “hasPhoneNumber max 3
PhoneNumber”.____
__ __
Having done that however the reasoned does not invalidate if
there are 4 phone numbers (i.e. Open World).____
__ __
Tony____
__ __
*From:*Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com
<mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>]
*Sent:* Saturday, February 07, 2015 10:48 AM
*To:* Sajjad Hussain
*Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>
*Subject:* Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR
Ontology Requirements____
__ __
You can also close the world declaritively. If I have a
Patient with 3 phone numbers, the instance can declare it's
a subclass of Patients with an upper bound of 3 on the
number of phone numbers. You can do similar things for the
vocabulary. It's verbose, but it works.____
____
*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 10:00 PM, Sajjad Hussain
<huss...@cs.dal.ca <mailto:huss...@cs.dal.ca>> wrote:____
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____
__ __
__ __
__ __
***********************************************************************************
Manage your subscriptions <http://www.HL7.org/listservice> |
View the archives <http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its> |
Unsubscribe
<http://www.HL7.org/tools/unsubscribe.cfm?email=rrhau...@gmail.com&list=its>
| Terms of use
<http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules>
--
Robert Hausam, MD
Hausam Consulting LLC
+1 (801) 949-1556 <tel:%2B1%20%28801%29%20949-1556>
rrhau...@gmail.com <mailto:rrhau...@gmail.com>
