With Derek's permission, I have started a thread in openEHR-clinical to continue the clinical /philosophical aspects arising from his reply to Seref's original post..
"So semantic interoperability is a kind of philosopher's stone...." Hopefully this will allow Seref to get some sensible technical solutions to his query and let anyone who fancies a bit of a philosophical battle to indulge over in openEHR-clinical. Regards, Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com BCS Primary Health Care Specialist Group www.phcsg.org 2009/4/22 Derek Meyer <dmeyer at sgul.ac.uk>: > No, go ahead. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ian McNicoll <Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com> > Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:12 pm > Subject: Re: Layers of interoperability, OWL and openEHR > To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical at openehr.org> > >> Can I suggest moving this to the Clinical list? I think it is an >> important subject ,and rather dear to my own interests but, as Thomas >> pointed out, we are in danger of submerging Seref's original more >> technical question. >> >> Any objections? >> >> Ian >> >> Dr Ian McNicoll >> office / fax ?+44(0)141 560 4657 >> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 >> skype ianmcnicoll >> ian at mcmi.co.uk >> >> Clinical Analyst ?Ocean Informatics ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com >> BCS Primary Health Care Specialist Group www.phcsg.org >> >> >> >> 2009/4/22 Gerard Freriks <gfrer at luna.nl>: >> > Dear Seref, >> > >> > Ask yourself the question: >> > How do we, humans, deal with interoperability? >> > >> > Do we humans use formally expressed ontologies using OWL. >> > Do we use rigid formal syntaxes where we use strictly defined formal >> > terms. >> > Do wet have to express a measurement in DV-Quantity as Double or >> > Floating Point with Precision x. >> > All this is the world of zero's and one's, bits and bytes and IT >> > industry. >> > >> > We humans have a vague knowledge of many concepts in our worlds. >> > We have a very flexible syntax and many, many terms. We even invent >> > new ones. >> > It is a chaotic system based on a limited set of rules with emergent >> > behavior. >> > We express what we want to document using documents, chapters, >> > sections, paragraphs, words and characters. >> > This is the world of documentation, concepts, humans. >> > This the magnificent world of language, prose and poetry. >> > Where on the basis of a limited set of rules we can document >> everything.> >> > It is clear that both worlds (IT and Humans) overlap in certain >> areas.> But mostly the do not overlap. >> > Do not mix them up and when you do, we get confused and create >> monsters.> Both worlds have to stay absolutely orthogonal to each >> other.> >> > Any interoperability solution where notions, ways of thinking and >> > expressing, from the IT world with bits and bytes are enforced on >> > humans, will create problems. >> > Solutions should start at this human documentation/language level. >> > >> > The EHR is about documentation of events/facts/thoughts/ideas for >> > human consumption primarily. >> > IT-systems should support this. That is all we need for now. >> > We can try to model real life using the formal, rigid, technical >> ways.> And create something that doesn't fit the needs of humans or >> relates> to this human world. >> > Or we use IT and models to support humans to document what they feel >> > they need to document. >> > Humans are not very precise but language works rather efficiently >> and> well enough. >> > >> > Modeling knowledge in ontologies is an interesting academic >> exercise.> Modeling the complex real life is an interesting >> academic exercise. >> > But... >> > Let humans use words freely, either as free text of better from a >> > common controlled flexible resource (dictionary=coding system/ >> > terminology/classification). >> > Let humans use words in a syntax (Reference Model) to create freely >> > all sentences/screens (Templates) they need using agreed >> documentation> patterns (Archetypes), using tools based on an >> Archetype Model. >> > >> > And that for the moment is good enough at this point in time looking >> > for the Holy Grail called Semantic Interoperability. >> > >> > Gerard >> > >> > >> > On 21, Apr, 2009, at 12:25 , Seref Arikan wrote: >> > >> >> Dear members of the list, >> >> I'd appreciate your opinions and guidance about a particular topic. >> >> As most of you probably know, the work in the ontology domain has >> >> been the flagship of semantic interoperability for many projects >> >> now, and there is a large amount of researchers active in the >> field.>> I've been involved in use of ontologies for semantic >> >> interoperability for the first time in 2002, and since then, >> >> ontologies have become a frequently pronounced solution for a large >> >> set of problems. >> >> However, I have a feeling that the nature of this work creates just >> >> a layer in the multilayer interoperability space. Expressing >> >> relationships among different entities and doing this in a formal >> >> way (OWL) is nice. OWL also allows you to do processing, reasoning >> >> on the defined relationships, but unless I'm missing something, >> this>> is all about relationships, and concepts. I mean the >> capabilities of >> >> OWL seem to be valid in the relationships is defines. >> >> What about the actual things, data items, entities that OWL links >> >> together? I've been a proponent of well defined type systems and >> >> object hieararchies in healthcare interoperability solutions, since >> >> I've spent years in the software development side of the domain, >> and>> a huge number of issues arise from the developers interpreting >> >> losely defined types, or inventing their own types. >> >> Now pinning down concepts either by using terminologies or >> >> ontologies is good. It is good to know that two fields on two >> >> different data structures are pointing to the same concept. This >> >> however, is the beginning of the process. Pointing at the same >> thing>> and processing it in the same way are different things. >> Just because >> >> we agree that we are pointing to body temperature in two different >> >> documents does not stop us from processing one of them with a >> >> double, and the other one with a float. >> >> There is a great deal of information out there expressed in the >> form>> of OWL, or other formalisms, but I can't see this covering all >> >> aspects of interoperability, but (no offense) there is a large >> crowd>> out there who think they have solved the problem of semantic >> >> interoperability. Though it may be an undervaluation of the work, >> >> "mappings" are nice, but they don't ease the rest of the work, >> where>> mapped items are processed in different domains. >> >> Are there resources or works that you know of, that try to link >> type>> systems in openEHR or other formalisms like 13606 or HL7 to >> these>> semantic expressions? How does a DVQuantity instance and an >> OWL>> expression play together? >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> Seref >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > openEHR-technical mailing list >> > openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
