On 06/07/2013 01:40 PM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
Not a single word about privacy and dangers in the position statement ?
Strange...
Right. Privacy is very important, but orthogonal: privacy requirements
would apply to *any* information representation language. The intent
was to keep the Yo
On 06/07/2013 01:40 PM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:>
> I think life sciences have been early adopters for a while so this may
> be a bit of preaching to the converted :-)
I sure hope so! :)
On 06/07/2013 02:00 PM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:44:55AM -0700, peter.hend...@
In view of the upcoming Definitions in Ontologies (DO 2013) workshop that will
be held on July 7, in Montreal, in conjunction with ICBO 2013, we are sending
out a survey on definitions:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/11yxHNL6noN8_oa8aEuHowOZZTvd__t164pNgtmEzSG8/viewform.
The objective is to ga
OK, technically, the CCR spec imposes a model, but
it is the universal model with the least
specification density because all EHRs are
required to output it. That means it is a
universal input to all databases. And the
conversion of XML formats to any database you want
is up to the beholder. Con
Hello Rich,
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:17:27AM -0700, Rich Cooper wrote:
> By NTSC specification, all certified EHR systems
> must be able to output XML files in the CCR
> (continuity of care record) format, so there is
> already a standard for the data itself,
We are talking about healthcare in
(David - correct me if I'm wrong here).
The emphasis of the health-care sessions at SemTech was on RDF to "*surface
your semantics*" (Charlie Mead's phrase), as one medium for *both data and
schema*.
No data arrangement is forced on you when you expose what you have. As
David said at SemTech, "RD
By NTSC specification, all certified EHR systems
must be able to output XML files in the CCR
(continuity of care record) format, so there is
already a standard for the data itself, with no
models imposed on the data.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLo
And everyone makes there own SNOMED and HL7. I don't know. We all
basically agreed to "a model" when making SNOMED. It would never have
worked if everyone could make their own roles.
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are prohibited from sharin
Hello Peter,
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:44:55AM -0700, peter.hend...@kp.org wrote:
> We'll still argue about whether we use SNOMED roles, make HL7 rim classes
> and roles or openEHR or something else.
Asking for a single extensive ontology about the world - or even about a
limited subject - tha
Also, the RDF is just triplets. It doesn't say who's model. It is RDF of
a SNOMED like or HL7 like or openEHR like model? Does everyone make up
their own roles and nodes? So saying it's RDF leaves all the same
problems we have now. It's not so much the representation as it is the
models.
W
Hello David,
I think life sciences have been early adopters for a while so this may
be a bit of preaching to the converted :-)
Not a single word about privacy and dangers in the position statement ?
Strange...
Regards,
Michael Brunnbauer
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:03:17PM -0400, David Booth
FYI, there is an excellent article on SemanticWeb.com about the workshop
held this week at the SemTech conference, on "RDF as a Universal
Healthcare Exchange Language", which culminated in a position statement
called the "Yosemite Manifesto":
http://goo.gl/eibDL
Here is the manifesto itself:
h
12 matches
Mail list logo
