Re: [COI] Clinical Observations Interoperability Telcon January 15 2008

[Samson Tu]

Sorry about the tardy response. I am supposed to be working on a proposal. Kashyap, Vipul wrote: Is there a good time sometime tomorrow or Monday, when we can discuss these issues over the phone. Furthermore, I would like to solicit your help and involvement in coming up with the expressions. I think I need to digest your Brainstorming slides first. I was responding to Helen's request for information about  "a good ontology version of RIM/CDA" [VK] That is the one of the goals of the COI project. The methodology is to use some use cases to drive the analysis and design work required to come up with an ontology version of the RIM/CDA. Can you explain what you mean by "ontology version" of the RIM/CDA? What is the meaning of an ontology version of an information model? How would it different from Marley's RIM OWL ITS? [VK] I agree with you that Alan Rector's paper is very relevant. Our goal is to apply his approach to come up with a working model which can be implemented to support patient recruitment functionality There are so many ways to model eligibility criteria.  I am not sure I understand "filling this table with HL7/RIM/CDA constructs." The RIM Acts have criterion mood. So an eligibility criterion involving "Serum Creatine," for example, can be an Observation Act in criterion mood with code = a terminology code for Serum Creatinine and value = an interval of Physical Quantity (and maybe effectiveTime to express temporal constraint. Presumably Tom Marley's OWL ITS of the HL7 RIM would give you such a RIM construct the criterion in OWL syntax. ( [VK] This is very similar to the discussion I had with Dan Russler. In my mind you seem to be proposing a methodology to express an eligibility criteria (Serum Creatinine value > X). Observation.code for Serum Creatinine Act.effectiveTime for getting the time of the observation if required. Observation.value = Interval of Physical Quantitiy I was not proposing a methodology. I was indicating my understanding of "HL7/RIM/CDA construct" that represents a criterion.   These things have to be taken together to come up with an OWL _expression_ to model eligibility criteria. Those properties are "take together" as an instance of the Observation in criterion mood. HL7 Observation in criterion mood is a data structure, which can have a representation in OWL syntax, once you model the RIM in OWL, as Tom Marley has done. If you want to model the criterion as an OWL class _expression_ that a DL reasoner can evaluate, that's a different matter entirely, and I am not sure HL7 RIM helps you. So I don't know what kind of OWL _expression_ you are looking for. [VK] Yes, GELLO is a possibility to model the logical expressions related with the criteria whereas RDF/OWL might be useful to represent the data and knowledge descriptions. I understand the context and background of how we are creating the spread sheet is not clear... GELLO assumes a fairly minimal object-oriented model. I don't see RDF/OWL as having particular advantage in representing data. My past experiences suggest that criteria will involve temporal/data/terminological abstractions. At the moment I don't know of any language that is completely satisfactory. Samson -- Samson Tu email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Research Scientist web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/ Center for Biomedical Informatics Research phone: 1-650-725-3391 Stanford University fax: 1-650-725-7944