15:58:59 RRSAgent has joined #hcls 15:58:59 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-irc 15:59:05 Zakim, this will be hcls 15:59:05 ok, ericP, I see SW_HCLS()11:00AM already started 15:59:33 +ericP 15:59:37 Zakim, who is here? 15:59:37 On the phone I see Kerstin_Forsberg, ericP 15:59:38 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, TallTed, mscottm, egonw, ericP 16:04:19 + +1.469.226.aaaa 16:09:57 +[IPcaller] 16:11:29 topic: ont review 16:12:31 claud: reviewed josh's FHIR and O-RIM with an eye towards using it for clinical decision support 16:12:56 ... wanted what could be leveraged for use in a CDS ontology 16:13:24 ... RIM's need for interop lead to a closed model with many constraints. 16:13:34 ... O-RIM's terminology is particular to RIM. 16:13:54 ... I had planned on an ontology designed for a more open world 16:14:15 ... using SKOS/DC rather than RIM 16:14:37 ... the philosophy is a bit different: 16:15:37 ... .. getting interop in key aspects of use cases leads to a very controlled expression which won't meet arbitrary new use cases. 16:16:24 Claude has joined #hcls 16:16:48 ... .. alternatively, design with a set of principles which can allow extenders to get interop when possible but still extend in new ways when needed 16:17:07 ... O-RIM has lots of classes which are designed by intersection. 16:20:09 ericP: right, RIM's real ontology code is in implementation guidelines which re-use the six for classes and the e.g. source/target constraints for particular ActRelationship codes 16:20:38 Claude: for example, you could have an obs with multiple codes, but that confuses interop 16:21:14 ... alternative, e.g. frequency superProperty which is partitioned into basically incomaptible specialized frequencies 16:22:53 Standards are intended to reduce people's choices. The strength of the semantic web is that there is both a social and technical aspect to it. The technical aspect permits non-ambiguity. The social aspect allows one to leverage what exists on the web to develop their own ontologies. 16:24:10 The standard is released to meet some use cases but this has a very long tail. Because standards are slow to develop, you often take too long to get something in people's hands or the standard does not meet anyone's needs. By developing an ontology that is more open world, you can better address the long tail but you are less able to constrain this ontology. 16:25:47 E.g., extensions of SKOS vocabularies for terminology. The problem with this approach is that it can become chaotic with people creating concepts that can no longer properly support inferencing or that are semantically inaccurate. 16:26:21 Need some professional governance to ensure that there is some order in this process. There are systems that exist to support this. For instance, Web Protege, Drupal, etc.... 16:26:22 +Mike_Denny 16:26:35 mike_denny has joined #hcls 16:27:00 That is, encourage discussion among participants to support proper review of proposed concepts and relationships. 16:28:04 To develop a CDS ontology could take many years, so an open world with crowd sourcing and review may reduce the chaos in this process. 16:28:50 This may allow more flexibility in its development. However, some governance needs to be in place. 16:29:59 E.g., someone proposes a concept. It is reviewed to ensure (1) it does not already exist, (2) it is semantically 'correct', (3) it is placed in its proper place in the hierarchy. 16:30:42 Need to be concerned with the following: 16:31:41 You may propose concepts but these need to be reviewed 16:32:16 Write deviations from core or everyone collaborates to form ontology 16:32:49 This requires sufficient expertise among the reviewer to ensure that the ontology is sound. 16:33:08 That the ontology is inferenceable 16:33:21 Group collaborates to define the ontology 16:33:45 Another group (the 'board') validates and 'approves' the changes. 16:35:14 UMLS has website that allows folks to propose concepts/synonyms and then these are reviewed and possibly incorporated. 16:35:39 UMLS is versioned and different versions may hold a different set of concepts. 16:35:49 Problem arises during splitting of concepts. 16:36:33 It forces folks to identify where concept is used and which new one should be used if they decide to adopt this version of the terminology. 16:39:02 Claude: if you look at HL7's coded value, you have [ codeSystem(OID), code, ...] 16:39:17 ... this could easily be represented as an extension to skos 16:39:51 ... the disease hierarchy in SNOMED has e.g. broader, narrower, related 16:40:08 ... (potential transitive) 16:40:31 ... emphasema narrowerThan lungDisease narrowerThan disease. 16:40:48 ... vs. emphasema relatedTo smoking 16:41:41 ... so use skos as a core with a set of extensions validated by domain experts as being correct and meeting valuable use cases [bang for the buck] 16:42:19 ... so when you working with this, you're extending a solid, well-thought-out core 16:43:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2013/C-CDA/IJ.xml example of the coded values mentioned above 16:44:02 kirsten: important to work toghether with existing standards orgs 16:44:40 ... in bioportal, we're working with an old version of MeDRA because we didn't push the skos back 16:47:55 Some ontologies were very pure but do not meet any use cases. More concrete ontologies that meet particular use cases may thus be favored. 16:48:39 Some ontologies are more arcane but they are arcane because they needed to solve a particular challenge that a cleaner ontology may not have anticipated. 16:50:29 The 'agile' vs 'waterfall' - build around the use cases vs build to meet a theoretical optimum but without field validation. 16:52:58 Core ontology for key clinical concepts such as observation, procedure, etc... 16:53:05 Data types 16:53:05 egonw has joined #HCLS 16:53:09 Some key libraries 16:53:25 At the bottom are ontologies for each of the therapeutic areas 16:54:01 They are basically subclasses of observations, assessments, etc... but they are particular to the domain - e.g., more 'Detailed Clinical Models' 16:54:21 They reside in the therapeutic ontology 16:55:09 Some of these concepts may be leveraged by other ontologies for different purposes 16:55:33 This process may break things as concepts are moved from one ontology to another but allows a healthy 'refactoring' over time. 16:55:46 -Kerstin_Forsberg 16:56:07 Progressive elaboration could really benefit a CDS ontology. 17:02:53 Need to write documentation for our implementation and have people reuse ontology and governance model. This will encourage FDA to enhance their ontologies with additional Therapeutic Areas. 17:06:48 egonw_ has joined #HCLS 17:07:57 Request to group members: I am preparing a rationale statement for including RDF/OWL provisions in a healthcare information system. I am trying to pull together a fairly exhaustive list of where RDF and OWL are being used today in healthcare related applications, tools, services, research initiatives, or other resources. If you aware of any listings or specific examples that you can point me toward, please forward to msdenny@mitre.org or the HCLS fo[CUT] 17:08:33 -[IPcaller] 17:14:59 http://code.google.com/p/cpr-ontology/ 17:20:46 - +1.469.226.aaaa 17:20:47 -ericP 17:20:47 -Mike_Denny 17:20:48 SW_HCLS()11:00AM has ended 17:20:48 Attendees were Kerstin_Forsberg, ericP, +1.469.226.aaaa, [IPcaller], Mike_Denny 17:32:19 egonw_ has joined #HCLS 18:07:01 Zakim has left #hcls 18:09:44 mscottm has joined #hcls 19:53:42 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 19:53:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/11-hcls-minutes.html ericP 19:53:49 RRSAgent, please make log world-visible 20:29:44 egonw_ has joined #HCLS 20:37:30 mscottm has joined #hcls 22:41:37 mscottm has joined #hcls 23:02:07 egonw_ has joined #HCLS