On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:10:09 Wayne Wilson wrote:
>Andrew po-jung Ho wrote:
...
>> Although I can appreciate the benefits of having an intermediate common
>representation, I just don't see how it is absolutely necessary.
>> Using an easier to understand example, if we wish to go from schema=Chinese to
>schema=Japanese, why do we need to go through an intermediate schema=English?
>>
>> [Chinese==>Japanese vs. Chinese==>English==>Japanese]
>>
>If that's all you want to do, there is no reason. But when you want to
>go from Chinese to Zulu, Chinese to German, Chinese to Spanish, Chinese
>to ...., it becomes a much easier task if a superset intermediary
>exists: chinese to <generic language schema> and then into target
>language.
Wayne, I completely agree with your succinct assessement!
However, in the case of medical/scientific terminology, it is critical to note that a
"superset intermediary" does not exist (and perhaps _cannot_ exist).
Therefore, is it possible that using an intermediary scheme actually makes the
translation more difficult?
Do you see what I mean?
> To give a similar example ( and one that shouldn't have needed an
>intermediate in the first place ), look at HL7 in any major medical
>center: Nearly all of us have interface engines whose sole purpose is
>to connect HL7 from System A to HL7 from System B.
I am so glad that you gave this example. This is clearly an example of how an
"intermediate schema" (HL7) can still fail. Thus even when an approach has "apparent"
/ hypothetical benefits, it remains to be seen whether these benefits can be realized
in the real world.
...
>It became much easier when we bought an interface
>engine which acts a single target to adapt our connections to.
>Now we
>have a more tractable and linearly scalable solution: each new system
>means one new adapter instead of a 100 new adapters.
So - in essense, HL7 was inadequate as an intermediate schema. On the other hand, the
combination of HL7 and the "interface engine" was a more functional "intermediate
schema" for your setting.
>Each new chinese
>document needs one translation instead of dozens of translations.
The alternative solution that I am proposing is one without a fixed intermediate
reference schema. Instead, what it uses are "Linkers" that mediate between schema:
Chinese==>Japanese, Japanese==>Zulu, Zulu==>English. When one wishes to go from
Chinese to English, then it is possible to use the "Linkers" that takes the data from
Chinese, through Japanese and Zulu, to English.
...
>And, if the scale of the computer's data is small
>enough, no problems seem to exist in processing and retrieving either.
I think you are absolutely right. That is why OIO starts with very small units of
data (items and small collection of items=forms). A little harder than bits and
bytes, but hopefully still at a manageable scale :-). Definitely easier than system
to system and perhaps even more useful.
Andrew
---
Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
www.TxOutcome.Org
Assistant Clinical Professor
Department of Psychiatry, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
University of California, Los Angeles
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at
http://www.eudoramail.com
