<egombocz> aaaa is egombocz

<dbooth> zakim is doing weird things -- not accepting codes but hanging up

-> http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/0924-FDA_TA-egp/ slides

FDA Therapeutic area wrapup

<HartC> yes.

<Marc_AgfaHealthcare> Hi this is Marc (Agfa Healthcare-Belgium) joining

<dbooth> _: Using LOINC or SNOMED CT codes?

<dbooth> Eric: Will get to that

<dbooth> Peter: When the RIM first came out, it was based on entities and roles particiatping in acts. But groups kept adding to it and it got so big that nobody wanted to deal with it. hence FHIR. But the basic idea of entities and roles participating in acts.

<dbooth> ... Top of ontology should at least start with Entities, Roles, Participations and Actions. Probably also Substances and Procedures.

<dbooth> ... In Protege OWL model, everything is was directly under owl:Thing originally.

<dbooth> Eric: I see data entities under owl:Thing.

<dbooth> Peter: Yes, that's what I was objecting to. That's why I suggested having those other classes directly under owl:Thing.

<dbooth> Peter: Observation is under Act, because it is an act of observation.

<dbooth> ... They're participating in an observation.

<dbooth> Claude: We're also doing a CDS model on top of FHIR, and distinguishh between an act and an observation, which is what you observed.

<dbooth> Eric: The HL7 use case are typically not interested in the physiological processes, but more interested in the speech acts involved.

<dbooth> Peter: The actual pathology should be in LOINC or SNOMED CT etc.

<dbooth> Eric: There were pictures that says "a procedure event has an act relationship to an observation event".

<dbooth> Peter: All of the things I saw in the FHIR model could have been under one of the 5 main classes.

<egombocz> agree with Peter strongly

<Marc_AgfaHealthcare> There are couple of confusing definitions regarding the observations/observables and acts/activities/procedure. Mainly due to different terminologies: SNOMED CT, BRIDG, ETC. Here we need to stick on one definition OR mapping

<dbooth> Peter: BRIDG will be adding those 5 top level classes.

<dbooth> Claude: In the CDS we're building a more layered ont on top of FHIR, which aligns fairly well with the RIM.

<Marc_AgfaHealthcare> will BRIDG be influenced by SNOMED CT in creating those 5 classes?

<dbooth> ... For CDS we need to be able to have core concepts for FHIR. I could present what we've done so far, for feedback.

<dbooth> Peter: I'm no longer defending that it has to be the RIM, because the RIM is too heavy to survive.

<dbooth> ... But they can use the basic notions of Entities and Roles participating in Acts.

<dbooth> Claude: Could you map RIM to BRIDG to the same effect?

<dbooth> Peter: You can give me any one thing and I can tell you which of the 5 classes is belongs in.

-> http://www.bridgmodel.org/owl/3.2 bridgmodel3.2.owl

<dbooth> Peter: Ont for RIM is big. They took a given subclass of Act and made lists of codes that were legitimate for the slots and put them all in.

<dbooth> ... Lloyd put thousands of vocabulary terms.

<dbooth> Marc asks: ill BRIDG be influenced by SNOMED CT in creating those 5 classes?

<dbooth> Peter: No, SNOMED CT does not talk about them at all.

<dbooth> ... They touch each other but they are not mixed up.

<Marc_AgfaHealthcare> Then it will be somehow in line with RIM?

<dbooth> (back to EricP slide 7)

<dbooth> slide 9

<dbooth> http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/0924-FDA_TA-egp/#%289%29

<dbooth> DBooth: Is Organizer class good or bad?

<dbooth> EricP: Seems necessary for organizing.

<dbooth> Guoqian: Is this ont available somewhere?

<dbooth> Eric: It's linked at the front of the slides

<dbooth> Guoqian: Nice how you're handling the BRIDG complexity. How do you capture the domain expertise from domain experts?

-> http://www.w3.org/2013/12/FDA-TA/doc/RenalTransplantation-cmap.html Rtrans cmap

<dbooth> Eric: This CMAP links into BioPortal

<dbooth> Eric: We make a CMAP with the domain expert and then turn it into an ont.

<dbooth> ... I hacked the CMAP SVG to add the links to BioPortal, after exporting the SVG.

<dbooth> Guoqian: BRIDG is so complex. How do you make the domain experts understand it?

<dbooth> Eric: We used a part of BRIDG

<dbooth> Guoqian: Any connection between this work and CIMI?

<dbooth> Eric: No, and that's unfortunate.

<dbooth> ... But Harold Solbrig is working on modeling CIMI using Shape Expressions.

<dbooth> Peter: I don't find CIMI reference model very useful because it has classes like Item, Collection, Element, etc., which are like boxes within boxes.

<dbooth> ... The names of the classes don't have much meaning associated.

<dbooth> Guoqian: The advantage to use CIMI is that if other models like FHIR, SNOMED CT, etc. were in CIMI that we could related different models.

<dbooth> Peter: I don't see that you gain anything. Much better off putting them in the 5 backbone classes.

HL7 meetings and proposed WG on RDF for Semantic Interoperability

<scribe> scribenick: ericP

claude nanjo and i attended

<dbooth> I spoke to: Grahame Grieve, FHIR architect

<dbooth> Charlie McKay

<dbooth> Cecil Lynch

<dbooth> Paul Knapp

<dbooth> Woody Beeler

<dbooth> Bernd Blobel

<dbooth> Ken McCaslin

<dbooth> John Quinn

dbooth: claude nanjo and i attended

<dbooth> Charter draft: http://dbooth.org/2014/hl7/rdf-semantic-interop-wg-v7.doc

dbooth: i flew out to talk about starting the HL7 RDF for Semantic Interoperability WG
... we prepared a few slides.

<egombocz> need to leave, thank you

<HartC> sorry, got to go.

<dbooth> ITS work group: http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/xml/overview.cfm

<dbooth> AID work group: http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/java/overview.cfm

<dbooth> Peter: When you're doing things at HL7, are you thinking of using RDF as data stores? Vs to communicate between black boxes? Or as a way to define models?

<dbooth> Peter: RDF triples don't stand by themselves. They need the definitions, which are about the modeling.

<dbooth> ... There is interest in doing the modeling in RDF and OWL.

<dbooth> ... In Kaiser we have K-Con. We start with OWL and underneath it using Protege and OWL we come up with everything that would be needed to assess that disease.

<dbooth> Peter: RDF Fox sits on top of triplestore -- a fast OWL RL reasoner from Ian Horrock's group.

<dbooth> ... Take a FHIR resource, start with OWL ontology with 5 upper classes, fill out the OWL ont first of what the model should look like, then figure out how to parse FHIR into that.

<dbooth> ... You (David) could present this proposal at our committee.

<dbooth> http://dbooth.org/2014/hl7/rdf-for-interop.pdf

<dbooth> Claude: More support for having this effort be a part of the ITS group than a separate WG.

<dbooth> ... This would have cross-cutting concerns, connecting to a number of WGs. One of the big goals also is to bridge W3C and HL7 communities.

<dbooth> ... If we were to go forward as a subgroup, which WG would make most sense? The people that we spoke to at HL7 thought ITS. What do you (peter) see as pros/cons of AID group?

<dbooth> Peter: Our group started as the Java SIG, when the RIM was new.

<dbooth> ... Gunther was my co-chair, and he was main author of RIM.

<dbooth> ... Format could create Java classes from the RIM. But people said they used other languages. So we changed our name to RIMBA.

<dbooth> ... so you can use it for generating tables, etc. too. You can take CDA messages, parse them into RIM and put them out.

<dbooth> ... Then FHIR came along. Others in HL7 make the stnadards, and we use them, so we changed our name again.

<dbooth> ... If it's "how do you do X" then it's our group. If it's how to serialize in XML, then it's ITS.

<dbooth> ... If it's "how to think about things in a different way" then it's our group. If it's "how to make the syntax so that everyone agrees" then it's ITS.

<dbooth> David: Does AID have regular teleconferences?

<dbooth> Peter: No. When we meet we have pre-invited people to present their approaches.

<dbooth> ... No weekly meetings.

<drjava> wiki.hl7.org

<dbooth> ACTION: David to try to schedule a presentation to ITS and AID HL7 WGs to discuss the proposed "RDF for Semantic Interoperability" WG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-hcls-minutes.html#action01]

<dbooth> ADJOURNED

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Quo/Guo/
Succeeded: s/This/This CMAP/
Succeeded: s/HL7 meetings/HL7 meetings and proposed WG on RDF for Semantic Interoperability/
Found ScribeNick: ericP
Inferring Scribes: ericP
Default Present: +1.415.740.aaaa, +1.978.794.aabb, DBooth, ericP, Tony, +1.510.418.aacc, +1.301.825.aadd, +44.792.050.aaee, HartC, Ingeborg, +1.310.266.aaff, Claude, Guoqian, +1.323.444.aagg, Mehmet, +1.323.444.aahh
Present: +1.415.740.aaaa +1.978.794.aabb DBooth ericP Tony +1.510.418.aacc +1.301.825.aadd +44.792.050.aaee HartC Ingeborg +1.310.266.aaff Claude Guoqian +1.323.444.aagg Mehmet +1.323.444.aahh
Got date from IRC log name: 23 Sep 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-hcls-minutes.html
People with action items: david