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> 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
