Hi Gerard,
RDF on its own certainly will *not* create semantic interoperability of
healthcare information. It is only a first step, which allows the
semantic to be expressed in a common language. I agree that the whole
process of achieving semantic interoperability is much more involved.
The Yosemite Project describes a roadmap to get there:
http://yosemiteproject.org/
Thanks,
David Booth
On 10/31/2015 05:13 AM, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote:
Dear David,
With interest I have attended two Telcon meetings.
And I have read some slide sets from presentations.
Some remarks I want to make:
- RDF (and related formats) could be used. But this is not enough.
- In my opinion it is impossible to map all standards (such as HL7, ISO
13606, SNOMED, …) fully and safely.
Partially it is possible, but there are too many partial
overlapping/conflicting concepts and modeling styes used by these standards.
Cultural, linguistic, differences exist between communities.
- To many times we focus on ‘semantic interoperability’, only, meaning
that a community using implementation guides is able to agree on the
meaning and use of data fields in an exchange format.
But leave a substantial amount of the epistemology of data for the
reader/user to infer. Many times quite a lot of implicit knowledge is
needed for the safe, correct and full interpretation
That is why I coined the new term ‘Semantic Interpretability’, meaning
that it must be possible to re-use data quite some time in the future or
be processed by a rules engine, safely, correctly and fully.
The implication is that we must standardize all the meta-data needed to
encompass this.
- It is clear to me that when we start to model data sets there are at
least two styles we can use.
Do we model documents/entities that refer to processes or model
processes with entities inside?
Do we create models and specialize them by changing the name/meaning of
classes or specialize them using fixed patterns of classes by changing
attribute data fields?
- In addition we have to decide about overlapping/competing ways of
modeling: using the structure of classes or pre or post-coordinated
codes. In short we have to agree how to deal with the boundary problem.
- Each standard makes it own implicit/explicit choices about all these
topics, making the notion that RDF on its self will solve all problems
questionable.
Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl <mailto:gf...@luna.nl>
On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:42 AM, David Booth <da...@dbooth.org
<mailto:da...@dbooth.org>> wrote:
Main agenda this week:
- FHIR RDF ValueSets:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=File:Comparison_of_ValueSet_approaches.pdf
We seem to be close to getting ValueSets worked out. Let's see if we
can get them nailed down this week.
Webex for teleconference:
https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5cd1bd8bb36825b9c4b369fd664bbb62
dial-up: +1-617-324-0000 Access code: 645 777 110
Meeting password: 4257
Complete agenda page:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=ITS_RDF_ConCall_Agenda
TO SPEED UP THE START OF OUR CALLS:
It would help if participants would join the IRC channel prior to
joining the teleconference line, as described below.
TELECONFERENCE DETAILS:
Tuesdays, 11:00am Eastern US (Boston) time zone
Webex for teleconference:
https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5cd1bd8bb36825b9c4b369fd664bbb62
dial-up: +1-617-324-0000 Access code: 645 777 110
Meeting password: 4257
IRC: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #hcls
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=gf...@luna.nl&list=its
Terms of use -
http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules
