lti-layered Knowledge Representations for Healthcare (was RE:
> An argument for bridging information models and ontologies at the syntactic
> level)
>
> At 3:53 PM -0700 7/24/08, Olasov, Ben wrote:
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan Russler
> >>
> >
At 3:53 PM -0700 7/24/08, Olasov, Ben wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan Russler
Hi Samson,
If "denote" = "describe" in your sentence, then I withdraw my objection.
But "denote" /= "describe". These two words
were intended to be, and are, used differently.
Consider the
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan Russler
>
> Hi Samson,
>
> If "denote" = "describe" in your sentence, then I withdraw my objection.
But "denote" /= "describe". These two words were intended to be, and are, used
differently. Consider the sentence, "The matrix P contains the entries
Hi Samson,
If "denote" = "describe" in your sentence, then I withdraw my objection.
My concern is that the term "class" as used in UML doesn't seem to mean
the same thing as you are describing for a class in OWL. For instance, I
don't see the same concept of "resource" in the definition of cla
Dan Russler wrote:
Hi Samson,
We are getting closer.
1) In the reference you site..."A class is the descriptor for a set"...
2) Earlier, you stated that "semantics of a class as denoting a set of
instances."
I believe these two statements represent the "apples" and "orange
I agree with you below, except I think it's peoples' "interpretation" of
the RIM that causes the confusion, e.g. "The focus of the RIM classes had
primarily been structure and not semantics." Since RIM is communicated in UML,
UML semantic rules apply, and one needs to be strict on the UM
See below...Yes let's move on to more examples...Dan
Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
I agree with you below, except I think it's peoples'
"interpretation" of the RIM that causes the confusion, e.g. "The
focus of the RIM classes had primarily been structure and not
semantics." Since RIM
Hi Vipul,
I agree with you below, except I think it's peoples' "interpretation" of
the RIM that causes the confusion, e.g. "The focus of the RIM classes
had primarily been structure and not semantics." Since RIM is
communicated in UML, UML semantic rules apply, and one needs to be
strict on t
1) In the reference you site..."A class is the descriptor for a set"...
2) Earlier, you stated that "semantics of a class as denoting a set of
instances."
I believe these two statements represent the "apples" and "oranges" you
referenced:
Statement 1) is the traditional "a class describes the
Hi Samson,
We are getting closer.
1) In the reference you site..."A class is the descriptor for a set"...
2) Earlier, you stated that "semantics of a class as denoting a set of
instances."
I believe these two statements represent the "apples" and "oranges" you
referenced:
Statement 1) is
Dan,
We are talking apples and oranges.
I am talking about the semantics of "class", of which the Observation
class is an example. [1], for example, says, "A class is the
descriptor for a set of objects with similar structure, behavior, and
relationships." (p. 50)
You are talking about a
Hi Samson,
Sorry for my older-style jargon...
Here is the Wikipedia entry on collection/aggregation. We often called
these classes "collectors" in jargon:
"Aggregation
Class diagram showing Aggregation between two
classes
Aggregation
is a variant of the "has a" or association relationshi
Dan,
You've lost me. What is an ObservationCollectorClass? Googling the term
gives only one hit, namely your message.
The conceptualization of a class as denoting a set of instances is
quite common. It's in UML, frame representation, and OWL. I don't
understand why Observation, as a RIM class
Dear All,
This is meant as a friendly comment, and perhaps a comment on the need
for further work. FWIW, I'm a UK based Oncology Reg. (can't translate to
US terms - sorry) just coming to the end of a PhD in CS. The PhD was
peripherally involved with ontologies, and I have edited OWL files by
Ouch...
A class of Observation does not denote a set of instances of type
Observation...One uses "collector" classes to describe sets. In other
words, an instance of an ObservationCollectorClass contains instances
of an ObservationClass. The ObservationCollectorClass (and instances
thereof) ce
Yes, if we understand the semantics of a class as denoting a set of
instances. Specifying WBC_Count_Observation is equivalent to defining a
subset of all Observations, which is natural to think about. If we see
Observation as a metaclass, then it's the set of sets of
observations.The properties
Hi Samson,
I agree...It is wrong to confuse the process of creating an instance in
the narrow sense (where the structural attributes and other attributes
are constrained to specific values) and creating an incremental
constraint on the structural attributes and code that allow one to
define "m
My understanding of the HL7 RIM is that, when you clone a RIM class,
such as Observation, into a specific domain model class (e.g.,
WBC_Count_Observation), you are placing restrictions on the RIM class,
i.e., constraining the cloned class's properties to have specific
values or to take values f
onday, July 21, 2008 5:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Samson Tu; Elkin, Peter L., M.D.; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Multi-layered Knowledge Representations for Healthcare (was
RE: An argument for bridging information models and ontologies a
Dan,
Looks like there is increasing convergence in our view points and some minor
divergences.
I'm confused...can you illustrate in UML, perhaps with the blood
pressure example? />
[VK] The UML Diagram illustrating WBC is attached with this e-mail (GIF
format). Look forward to y
sorry for the long delay...see below...Dan
Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
You are correct that classes in HL7 may have sub-classes.
[VK] I think the interesting question is whether these
classes are metaclasses, i.e., whether they belong to layer 1
or whether they are
You are correct that classes in HL7 may have
sub-classes.
[VK] I think the interesting question is whether these
classes are metaclasses, i.e., whether they belong to layer 1 or whether they
are in layer 2.
Classes and subclasses in a UM
Hi Adrian,
Extending the client stub would be another way to expose a web service.
Good thought.
Dan
Adrian Walker wrote:
Hi Dan --
Thanks for your quick reply. You wrote
I'm sure someone would have to write the EJB...for teaching, it would
be nice to expose a web service that a stu
Hi Dan --
Thanks for your quick reply. You wrote
*I'm sure someone would have to write the EJB...for teaching, it would be
nice to expose a web service that a student could incorporate into a web
service orchestration routine over the internet.*
Yes, that would be one approach.
Another way
Hi Again Dan --
You wrote: *I like your use case...we need better tools for CQI of
ontologies..*
Please feel free to use the Internet Business System [1] for this and other
purposes.
As mentioned, shared use is free. We will be happy to assist.
Best regards, -- Ad
Hi Adrian,
I like your use case...we need better tools for CQI of ontologies...Dan
Adrian Walker wrote:
Hi Dan --
Thanks for your thoughts about this.
You wrote...
If you used a modifier as you suggest below, you would need to modify
many of the hundreds of thousands of assertions repres
Hi Dan --
Thanks for your thoughts about this.
You wrote...
* If you used a modifier as you suggest below, you would need to modify many
of the hundreds of thousands of assertions represented in an ontology like
SNOMED.*
Actually, it seems that reasoning in executable English over SNOMED and
ot
See below...Dan
Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
You are correct that classes in HL7 may have sub-classes.
[VK] I think the interesting question is whether these classes are
metaclasses, i.e., whether they belong to layer 1 or whether they
are in layer 2.
Classes and subclasses in a U
Hi Adrian,
Belief is at the core of an ontology, not at the perphery as you suggest.
For example, the belief that "Type 1 Diabetes" and "Type 2 Diabetes"
both have a parent called "Diabetes" is a belief instantiated in the
SNOMED hierarchy. Of course, this representation is frought with
physi
Healthcare (was
RE: An argument for bridging information models and ontologies at the syntactic
level)
Dear Peter,
Apologies for the delay in responding There'a a lot of stuff going
around right now and I needed some "think" time. Responses to you
: Samson Tu; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Multi-layered Knowledge Representations for Healthcare (was
RE: An argument for bridging information models and ontologies at the syntactic
level)
Dear Vipul,
Attached please
Dan --
You wrote
*How does one bring belief into a model, e.g. realism, creationism, etc?*
One way of doing this is to write a layer of knowledge as rules in
executable English. The rules can conclude things like
"it is currently the view of US health professionals that..."
"a possibl
From: Kashyap, Vipul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 5/31/2008 7:00 AM
To: Elkin, Peter L., M.D.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Samson Tu; public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Multi-layered Knowledge Representations for Healthcare (was RE: An
argument
You are correct that classes in HL7 may have sub-classes.
[VK] I think the interesting question is whether these classes are
metaclasses, i.e., whether they belong to layer 1 or whether they are in layer
2.
To be more specific, by definition, once a class in H
Dear Peter,
Apologies for the delay in responding There'a a lot of stuff going around right
now and I needed some "think" time. Responses to your questions are included
inline.
In order to not confuse the Ontology classification with First Order /
Second Order / Higher Order logics, we
Hi Samson,
Here is some basic information on the use of HL7 RIM:
You are correct that classes in HL7 may have sub-classes. To be more
specific, by definition, once a class in HL7 is instantiated, the
classCode and the moodCode can never be changed throughout the lifecycle
of the instance. Th
It's good that we separate the conceptual "layers" (views) from the
logical/representation levels. My understanding of HL7 RIM classes is
that they (at least classes like Observation) are meant to be
*subclassed* into more specific domain classes. Templates/archetypes
are constraints on (
Dear Vipul and Dan,
In order to not confuse the Ontology classification with First Order /
Second Order / Higher Order logics, we use Level 1 Ontologies to be
domain independent (EAV just being a representational mechanism for a
logical system), level 2 Ontologies are domain dependent (e.g. CDA),
Hi Vipul,
Peter is right that the term "EAV" is a data schema implementation
model, even though it maps directly to a classic proposition model with
subject, predicate, and object of the predicate.
Layer 0 then would be the most abstract layer consisting purely of
formal propositions. In thi
39 matches
Mail list logo
