Hi Ian, It would be very nice to see openEHR collaborating in these semantic metadata models. Now I'm taking a course on semantic data integration, and it seems with a little effort on the openEHR side we can generate other models that we can query or reason over them. Recently I started to do some tests on rule definition and execution for CDS, maybe RDF + OWL + bla bla can complement openEHR in that area, since openEHR right now doesn't have a clear way of defining rules over a set of archetypes & data sets (compositions, entries or extracts).
Maybe when I get more immersed into RDF, RDF-S, SPARQL, etc. I can help in some way. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com > Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:19:05 +0100 > Subject: SMART platform and RDF > To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org > > 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 > > -- > Dr Ian McNicoll > office +44 (0)1536 414 994 > fax +44 (0)1536 516317 > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > skype ianmcnicoll > ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com > > Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK > Director openEHR Foundation www.openehr.org/knowledge > Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland > BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120705/215e3b43/attachment.html>
