Hi Kathrin This is very exciting news and I look forward to catching up on this area. It has been attempted on a few occasions, I believe as the OWL tooling improves we are likely to see benefits.
Cheers, Sam On 3/07/2012 8:29 PM, Kathrin Dentler wrote: > Dear all, > > Here in Amsterdam we are working on expressing archetypes as OWL > graphs, and actually I think that it would be ideal to host them under > the openEHR domain in future. > > We transform archetypes from ADL to OWL, with the work of Catalina > Costa from Medical University of Graz (previously in Universidad de > Murcia) and Leonardo Lezcano from the Universidad de Alcal? as a > starting point. Please consult our paper [1] that has been accepted > for the KR4HC workshop for details. It is not yet camera ready, but it > gives an overview of some advantages of representing archetypes in OWL. > > Currently Alberto Maldonado from IBIME, Technical University of > Valencia, is doing a research visit in our group. He is working on > generating OWL data (individuals) that are compliant with the OWL > representation of archetypes from both legacy XML data and archetype > compliant XML EHR extracts. The idea is to have normalized clinical > data expressed in OWL in order to ease its reuse in clinical research > (mainly clinical trials) and quality measurement. > > Best regards, > Kathrin Dentler > > [1] http://www.few.vu.nl/~kdr250/prohealth12kr4hc_archetypes_owl.pdf > > > > Op 03-07-12 10:19, Ian McNicoll schreef: >> There is quite a bit of interest in the UK in adapting the US-based >> SMART platform www.smartplatforms.org for UK use. One aspect of SMART >> involves the definition of a fairly simple API which serves RDF graphs >> of archetype like objects e.g Blood pressure, allergy. The SMART guys >> are aware of openEHR and have been quite support of it in the CIMI >> work, and I understand that they do not see the clinical content >> definitions underpinning the APIs as core business. >> >> It seems to me that there is an interesting possibility of using >> openEHR archetypes (probably templated) to define the clinical content >> which is to be expressed as RDF graphs. This will give a much more >> adaptable and extensible approach + better model governance etc. >> >> It seems to me that the key requirement is to be able to create a >> run-time artefact, in the same way that we create Template data schema >> but to output RDF rather than XSD. Is this correct and if so, does >> anyone have any experience with this? >> >> The other interesting aspect is that because the SMART API returns >> mostly ENTRY-level components, these need to be wrapped in some >> COMPOSITION level metadata. Does it make sense that we actually return >> very lean EHR Extracts? >> >> Ian >> > >
