On 14/01/2014 11:07, Diego Bosc? wrote:
> I like the idea, we were already exploring something similar to this
> for intra-archetype semantic relationships.
>
Since Diego brought up the topic....
one of the final things needed in ADL/AOM 1.5 is a better kind of slot,
which works off an ontology of archetypes. The question is: is the
ontology hierarchy defined by their specialisation relationships (and
going up into the categories Observation, Evaluation etc) or by some
independent ontology? The former would be automatically extractable from
the specialisation relationships of a population of archetypes, but the
latter is more likely to work as needed. Anyway, assuming that the
ontology can be established (e.g. in CKM or somewhere), new slots would
look something like:
items matches {
allow_archetype CLUSTER[id24] matches {< device_description OR <<
manual_procedure}
}
Where 'device' means CLUSTER archetypes classified under a
device_description node in the ontology. The '<' means any child (but
not this concept), '<<' means this concept or any child. The value of
this approach is that you may define your slot and publish your
archetype, then some time later, you realise you need to allow a new
archetype to be a slot filler. Assuming that the new archetype can be
reasonably classified as a 'device' or 'manual procedure' then you do
this in the ontology, and your slot definition now evaluates to pick up
your new archetype - no changes needed to either archetype.
More complex constraints could be defined:
items matches {
allow_archetype CLUSTER[id24] matches {< device_description OR <<
manual_procedure EXCEPT massage }
}
These kinds of expressions start to look like ref-set definitions, where
the ref-set are being defined on the archetype ontology rather than some
external terminology like SNOMED. If the archetype ontology were defined
in a SNOMED extension or similar, the same technical tools could be used
to evaluate slots.
- thomas
