SMART platform and RDF
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>
SMART platform and RDF
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 >> > >
SMART platform and RDF
Hi! Interesting work, and nice to see many OWL/archetype-experts working together! Are you planning to design any transformations of AQL-queries to SPARQL that matches your instance data format? (If so, we have a REST-based framework with a dedicated spot to put that translator in.) Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:59 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<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 >> >> > > -- > > Kathrin Dentler > > AI Department | Department of Medical Informatics > Faculty of Sciences | Academic Medical Center > Vrije Universiteit| Universiteit van Amsterdam > k.dentler at vu.nl | k.dentler at amc.uva.nl > > http://www.few.vu.nl/~kdr250/ > > > > __**_ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.**openehr.org lists.openehr.org> > http://lists.openehr.org/**mailman/listinfo/openehr-** > technical_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/aa7da333/attachment.html>
