I would agree that there are limits to the utility of such mappings - indeed it is to explore such limits that we are engaged in this thread. This is a serious area, and openehr, 13606, and hl7 all have mistakes and successes, (and differences and similarities). We have differing perspectives on those, but let's try to put that to one side and address common themes in this thread. I agree that there is a difference between language and ontology. I am less convinced that to serve clinical system interoperability the distinction can be maintained absolutely. At one level there is the blurred boundary between terminology and structure, and at another there is the safe automated reuse of entries/clinical statements - something that happens and for which we need a better understanding, with entries being treated as semantically independent. I beleive that ontologists have much to contribute to this area. I share with Seref a desire to understand why the research work is not getting into practice. If it is not addressing the practical questions then I move on to ask what work is.
My interest is in asserting the relationships between standards relevant to interoperability. I beleive that there is value in seeing what is stopping this happening, and whether the cost of addressing some or all of those hurdles would be justified All the best Charlie Charlie McCay. 07808570172 On 22 Apr 2009, at 23:02, "Seref Arikan" <serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com > wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090423/ebadc502/attachment.html>
