Hi Gerard, What you have outlined is pretty much what I've been trying to express, and the comments of the people I've mentioned also point out to the differences you've listed. Would you mind commenting on efforts like sparql, or semantic query languages, where the idea is to use a formalism at an abstract level (like ontology level) to process heterogeneous data homogeneously? Do you think that there is no future for these kind of efforts? My discussion with others, and my experience so far points out to the situation you've described, but I'm trying to figure out if this the best we can ever reach.
Kind regards Seref On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Gerard Freriks <gfrer at luna.nl> wrote: > Dear Seref, > HL7 made serious mistakes. > They used the RIM to model the real world events and documentation about > it. > > Mixing two different types of models is impossible. > The best that can happen is that in one model-world one refers to > constructs in the other world. > > Models of reality. > Ontologies are models of reality and in semantic interoperability we use > them to construct lists of codes, labels and descriptions. > Because of the ontology we are able to make inferences, to express > knowledge behind the lists of codes, labels and descriptions. > Because of the ontologies we are able (eventually) to make applications > more intelligent and kind of let them reason. > > Models of documentation. > EN13606/openEHR and HL7v3 CDA are models that help people document data and > information. > It helps them archive, exchange and re-use. > All data and information stored, is stored with all contextual information > and meta-information about the documentation process. > Models of documentation store data and information in named chapters, > sections, paragraphs. > They allow users to write complex sentences, using documentation patterns > humans agreed upon. > They use words from dictionaries (coding systems, terminologies, > classifications and code lists). > They never map to ontologies. Should never map to ontologies and vice > versa. > > Any attempt to try to map Ontologies to Syntax structures is bound to fail. > It is squaring the circle. > > Gerard > > -- <private> --Gerard Freriks, MD > Huigsloterdijk 378 > 2158 LR Buitenkaag > The Netherlands > > T: +31 252544896 > M: +31 620347088 > E: gfrer at luna.nl > > > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:06 PM, Seref Arikan wrote: > > Hi Charlie, a couple of good points! Comments are inline. > > > I am working on how the NHS Logical Record Architecture (LRA) asserts >> conformance/compliance to external standards. One thing that is required >> is a semantic mapping between the LRA specifications and the external >> standard. Initially I am mainly interested in mapping the static models. >> (Reference models, datatypes, templates, archetypes, etc) >> >> Great starting point. My question is: let's assume you'll have the > complete mappings tomorrow morning, given to you by someone. For now, let's > say they are expressed in OWL. All the possible mappings for static models > you've liste are complete. Now, what would you do with them? I'd love to > hear your use cases for the situation where you have these mappings. > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090422/fd641d96/attachment.html>
