- Original Message -
> From: "Lloyd McKenzie"
> To: "David Booth"
> Cc: "w3c semweb HCLS" , "HL7 ITS"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:58:24 AM
> Subject: Re: FHIR as JSON-LD? [was Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) H
are
>>> probably associated with the custodian of the record – they assigned the
>>> identities (unique within their ontology). When you query and aggregate
>>> FHIR RDF records from multiple custodians you know where the record came
>>> from and may have the sam
receiver doesn't have
>> an ontology at all, so presuming to include an import just because the code
>> system was referenced would actually often break things.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lloyd
>>
>>
>> --
; *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:28 PM
>
> *To:* Anthony Mallia
> *Cc:* Vipul Kashyap; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C
> HCLS COI call
d McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:28 PM
> *To:* Anthony Mallia
> *Cc:* Vipul Kashyap; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup /
> W3C HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontol
oth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
*Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C
HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
Hi Tony,
I don't think I'm following. There should be no need for
custodian-specific ontologies. The sender never
’t have it both ways.
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:31 PM
> *To:* Anthony Mallia
> *Cc:* Vipul Kashyap; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
>
> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last we
referenced.
Tony
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com<mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>]
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:00 PM
To: Vipul Kashyap
Cc: David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review
>
> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:00 PM
>
> *To:* Vipul Kashyap
> *Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C
> HCLS COI call -- Revie
: Vipul Kashyap
Cc: David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
Hi Vipul,
Yes, we'll be creating two different forms. Instances will be expressed in RDF
-
on the perspective
> taken,
> Of course there are pros and cons of these approaches and can lead us to
> different choices of how we model clinical information and knowledge.
>
> ---Vipul
>
>
>
> *From:* peter.hend...@kp.org [mailto:peter.hend...@kp.org
> ]
> * S
2) as well?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> ---Vipul
>
>
>
> *From:* Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 20, 2014 6:15 PM
>
> *To:* Vipul Kashyap
> *Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last we
Hi Matthias,
You're touching on an important point that I think we have not yet
articulated well enough.
No *single* ontology will meet all of the diverse use cases that occur
in healthcare and biomedical applications. That's obvious at one level,
but less obvious -- though still true -- ev
To: kashyap.vi...@gmail.com
Cc: da...@dbooth.org; grah...@healthintersections.com.au; i...@lists.hl7.org;
ll...@lmckenzie.com; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: RE: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
I can think
r.hend...@kp.org]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 5:31 PM
To: kashyap.vi...@gmail.com
Cc: da...@dbooth.org; grah...@healthintersections.com.au; i...@lists.hl7.org;
ll...@lmckenzie.com; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: RE: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCL
Dear all,
I have hardly participated in any of the calls lately and am coming at
this as a bit of an outsider. From my reading it indeed seems that any
officially accepted RDF version of FHIR data would use a code + code
system representation of 'concepts' from controlled vocabularies /
ontol
booth.org; grah...@healthintersections.com.au;
i...@lists.hl7.org; ll...@lmckenzie.com; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: RE: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C
HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
SNOMED can not and should not map to FHIR resourc
Hi Vipul,
On 12/20/2014 06:35 PM, Vipul Kashyap wrote:
Thanks for the feedback and clarification – Looks like we will have to
work at two different layers:
1.The syntactic translation from FHIR XML/JSON to RDF/OWL –
2.Enrichment of the RDF/OWL representation via ontologies and OWL
axioms.. wh
...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 6:15 PM
To: Vipul Kashyap
Cc: David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
Well, for FHIR at a minimum, you must be ab
have already been suggested).
>
>
>
> · Clearly articulate the value of the new RDF/RDFS/OWL
> representation over the current XML/JSON representation
>
> · Enablement of OWL/RDFS inference – so we could identify use
> cases that cannot be easily done based on th
representation for information model elements and
medical terminology concepts.
Thoughts. Suggestions?
---Vipul
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:36 PM
To: David Booth
Cc: w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject: Re: Minutes of
To: Vipul Kashyap
Cc: Grahame Grieve; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
Hi Vipul,
First, we would never define a specialized resource. As much as pos
I think using a concrete example helps. One thing which is becoming clear it
that we are perhaps modeling Snomed in different ways.
ok, well, how it works is that FHIR has a resource called "condition", which is
a record keeping construct people use to exchange information about proble
en suggested).
>
>
>
> · Clearly articulate the value of the new RDF/RDFS/OWL
> representation over the current XML/JSON representation
>
> · Enablement of OWL/RDFS inference – so we could identify use
> cases that cannot be easily done based on the XML/JSON repr
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:36 PM
To: David Booth
Cc: w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
I think we n
; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Subject: RE: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
SNOMED can not and should not map to FHIR resources. This is the difference
between clinical models that capture who, when wher
down
>> that path I suspect you'd find at some point that you were ending up
>> re-inventing RDF.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David Booth
>>
>>
>> Bob Leif
>>
>> 1)R. C. Leif and Stephanie H. Leif, “A shared standard for
&
t;> +1-780-993-9501
>>
>>
>>
>> Note: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and
>> positions
>> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of
>> my
>> clients nor thos
---Vipul
*From:*Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com
<mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>
<mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com <mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com>>]
*Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:36 PM
*To:* David Booth
*C
e organizations with whom I hold governance
>> positions.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Vipul Kashyap
>> mailto:kashyap.vi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Good list, Lloyd. Would like to suggest some more additions
>> (apologies if th
.
Tony Mallia
From: Timothy W. Cook [mailto:t...@mlhim.org]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:44 AM
To: David Booth
Cc: rl...@rleif.com; Lloyd McKenzie; Vipul Kashyap; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:34 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
> You might be able to extend XML that way, and it would be interesting to
> see what you could come up with, but if you went down that path I suspect
> you'd find at some point that you were ending up re-inventing RDF.
>
> Thanks,
> David Boo
lation, and Analysis of
Biomolecules, Cells, and Tissues XI 2013 (2013).
*From:*owner-...@lists.hl7.org [mailto:owner-...@lists.hl7.org] *On
Behalf Of *Lloyd McKenzie
*Sent:* Saturday, December 13, 2014 3:39 PM
*To:* Vipul Kashyap
*Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
*Subject:* Re: M
of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
Hi Vipul,
To me, your first two points go together. The only reason to do an RDF
representation is to support implementations that want to make use of semantic
web technol
: "Vipul Kashyap"
To: "'Grahame Grieve'"
Cc: "'Lloyd McKenzie'" , "'David Booth'"
, "'w3c semweb HCLS'" ,
"'HL7 ITS'"
Date: 13/12/2014 21:16
Subject:RE: Minutes of la
il.com] *On Behalf Of *Grahame
> Grieve
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 13, 2014 2:16 PM
> *To:* Vipul Kashyap
> *Cc:* Lloyd McKenzie; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C
> HCLS COI call -- Review of
OWL/RDFS inference – so we could identify use
> cases that cannot be easily done based on the XML/JSON representation
>
> · A common OWL/RDFS representation for information model elements
> *and* medical terminology concepts.
>
>
>
> Thoughts. Suggestions?
hem. Thank you.
From: "Vipul Kashyap"
To: "'Grahame Grieve'" , "'Lloyd
McKenzie'"
Cc: "'David Booth'" , "'w3c semweb HCLS'"
, "'HL7 ITS'"
Date: 12/13/2014 10:41 AM
Subj
Cc: Lloyd McKenzie; David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; HL7 ITS
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
VK> Would propose that FHIR could be the hub – and we could leverage RDF/OWL
constructs to
...@healthintersections.com.au
Cc: ll...@lmckenzie.com; kashyap.vi...@gmail.com; da...@dbooth.org;
public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
One of my favorite tweet
If every FHIR element was mapped to a snomed term, then you could represent
that in RDF no problems.
VK> Would propose that FHIR could be the hub – and we could leverage RDF/OWL
constructs to map FHIR elements to Snomed, MedDRA, ICD11, RxNorm, etc.?
However the problem with this is tha
WL/RDFS representation for information model elements and
medical terminology concepts.
Thoughts. Suggestions?
---Vipul
From: Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:36 PM
To: David Booth
Cc: w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject: Re: Minutes
ments _and_
medical terminology concepts.
Thoughts. Suggestions?
---Vipul
*From:*Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:ll...@lmckenzie.com]
*Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:36 PM
*To:* David Booth
*Cc:* w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
*Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subg
*To:* David Booth
*Cc:* w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
*Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF
Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology
approaches (cont.)
__ __
I think we need to define our
t of OWL/RDFS inference – so we could identify use
>>> cases that cannot be easily done based on the XML/JSON representation
>>>
>>> · A common OWL/RDFS representation for information model
>>> elements *and* medical terminology concepts.
>>>
&g
l...@lmckenzie.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 1:36 PM
> *To:* David Booth
> *Cc:* w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
> *Subject:* Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C
> HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
>
>
>
, December 08, 2014 1:36 PM
To: David Booth
Cc: w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
I think we need to define our objectives for the RDF representation. Mine ar
1 801 265 4636
snachimu...@mmm.com | www.3mtcs.com
From: Lloyd McKenzie
To: David Booth
Cc: Grahame Grieve , w3c semweb
HCLS , "i...@lists.hl7.org"
Date: 12/08/2014 04:13 PM
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup /
W3C HCLS COI cal
To: David Booth
> Cc: Grahame Grieve , w3c
> semweb HCLS , "i...@lists.hl7.org" <
> i...@lists.hl7.org>
> Date:12/08/2014 04:13 PM
> Subject:Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup /
> W3C HCLS COI call -- Review of FH
Yes. On the profile side, I'm certainly expecting that we'll be looking at
adding extensions to profile that allow manifesting relationships between
and abstractions of resources and properties, for a start.
--
Lloyd McKenzie
+1-780-993-9501
Note: Unless ex
I think that any ontology we create will have to be produceable in an
automated fashion from the FHIR artifacts. Any introduction of
hand-editing would be unacceptable from a maintainability and consistency
perspective. So we're looking at mechanical, no matter what. The question
is what the mec
Possibly a dream ontology would link to more other ontologies, such as
upper level ontologies, but other than that I view it as more of a
stylistic difference: more oriented toward a human conceptualization
that is natural to express in RDF (i.e., reflecting RDF's natural style).
But one probl
Booth [mailto:da...@dbooth.org<mailto:da...@dbooth.org>]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2:05 PM
To: Lloyd McKenzie
Cc: w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org<mailto:i...@lists.hl7.org>
Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FH
14 2:05 PM
> To: Lloyd McKenzie
> Cc: w3c semweb HCLS; i...@lists.hl7.org
> Subject: Re: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C
> HCLS COI call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
>
> Hi Lloyd,
>
> On 12/08/2014 01:35 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
Hi David
On 12/08/2014 01:35 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
>
>> I think we need to define our objectives for the RDF representation.
>> Mine are as follows:
>>
>
> Great list! My comments . . .
>
>
>> 1. It must be possible to round-trip from XML/JSON through RDF
>> representation
>>
>
> +1
>
> * Th
e: Minutes of last week's (Dec 2) HL7 ITS RDF Subgroup / W3C HCLS COI
call -- Review of FHIR ontology approaches (cont.)
Hi Lloyd,
On 12/08/2014 01:35 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
> I think we need to define our objectives for the RDF representation.
> Mine are as follows:
Great list! My
Hi Lloyd,
On 12/08/2014 01:35 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
I think we need to define our objectives for the RDF representation.
Mine are as follows:
Great list! My comments . . .
1. It must be possible to round-trip from XML/JSON through RDF
representation
+1
* This includes retaining inf
I think we need to define our objectives for the RDF representation. Mine
are as follows:
1. It must be possible to round-trip from XML/JSON through RDF
representation
* This includes retaining information about order of repeating elements
* Needs to allow for extensions where-ever they can appea
58 matches
Mail list logo
