Well, interoperability is defined by the base specification, not by any
particular technology representation (schema, schematron, OWL, etc.)
What really matters for interoperability is the RDF format, not the
OWL. We have two use-cases for the OWL representation - instance
validation and reasoning. The first requires closed world. The latter
could use open or closed world depending on the type of reasoning desired.
I'm ok with asserting SHALL for both. I think both are doable and both
are useful, so we may as well get them both done.
*Lloyd McKenzie
*Consultant, Information Technology Services
Gevity Consulting Inc.
E: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>
W: gevityinc.com <http://gevityinc.com/>
*GEVITY
**/Informatics for a healthier world /*
CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the
exclusive use of its intended recipients. If you have received this
communication by error, please notify the sender and delete the message
without copying or disclosing it*.*
NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions
expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer, my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold governance
positions
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Anthony Mallia <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
David,
I believe this question brings into play the definition of
interoperability.
With current technology it seems that we can get interoperability
only with a closed world assumption. It all depends on the
definition of interoperability (which has not been formally defined)
but the expectation is that the structure and semantics of an
exchange are understood computationally at run time.
I would invert Option C to MUST for closed and MAY for open. Or we
can choose another option.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: David Booth [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 1:50 PM
To: Lloyd McKenzie; Robert Hausam
Cc: Anthony Mallia; Sajjad Hussain; w3c semweb HCLS;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR Ontology
Requirements
I have listed the proposed wordings for requirement #11 that I have
seen so far:
http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#11._Enable_Inference
[[
#11. Enable Inference
Option A: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference.
Option B: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference
with monotonicity and open world assumption.
Option C: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS inference
under the open world assumption. However, some uses of the ontology
may require use of the closed world assumption.
Option D: (SHOULD) The FHIR ontology should allow expressions
enforcing both closed world and open-world reasoning against instances.
Option E: (MUST) The FHIR ontology must allow expressions enforcing
either closed world or open-world reasoning against instances.
Option F: Drop this requirement
]]
This includes option C that I just added.
If anyone has any other suggested wording changes for this or any
other requirement, please propose them now so that we can finalize
them on tomorrow's teleconference.
Thanks,
David
On 02/07/2015 03:00 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> It was working just fine for minimum cardinality. If you have a rule
> that says "must have at least one" and your instances says "I'm a
> subclass of the things that have exactly zero", the validator will
> detect the error. And we can do that because we know exactly what
> elements can potentially be allowed and can thus assert what has a
> cardinality of zero if they're missing from the instance.
>
> *Lloyd McKenzie
> *Consultant, Information Technology Services Gevity Consulting Inc.
>
> E: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:%2B1%20587-334-1110> <tel:1-587-334-1110
<tel:1-587-334-1110>>
> W: gevityinc.com <http://gevityinc.com> <http://gevityinc.com/>
>
> *GEVITY
> **/Informatics for a healthier world /*
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and for the
> exclusive use of its intended recipients. If you have received this
> communication by error, please notify the sender and delete the
> message without copying or disclosing it*.*
>
> NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and positions
> expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect those of my
> employer, my clients nor the organizations with whom I hold
governance
> positions
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Robert Hausam
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>
> Lloyd, that's certainly correct with the "upper bound", given the
> conditions that you describe. If an instance has 5 of
"something"
> when it's declared that it should have 4, then the reasoner can
> clearly determine that the instance is invalid. However,
using OWA,
> you can't do this for the "lower bound" of cardinality, as there
> always may be another "something" out there that the reasoner
is not
> aware of. I'm sure that we all know all of this, but it
definitely
> makes validating integrity constraints using pure OWL in many
cases
> either difficult or impossible.
>
> I've found this discussion of the issue from Clark&Parsia to
be useful:
>
> http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/icv/
>
> This is obviously referring to a proprietary solution (their
Pellet
> reasoner and the ICV extension), and certainly there are other
> techniques and options available. But I think this does
frame the
> issue and some potential solutions for it pretty well.
>
> So, getting back to the ontology requirements, I think we clearly
> will need to be able to use *both* the open and closed world
> assumptions, so maybe we should say that we *MUST* be able to do
> both? - something like:
>
> MUST: OWL ontology will allow expressions enforcing either closed
> world or open-world reasoning against instances.
>
> Rob
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Lloyd McKenzie
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> If you declare an instance has 4 of something, that those
> instances are disjoint and that the instance is a subclass of
> those instances that allow only 3 of something, the reasoner
> *should* declare the instance invalid. Certainly I was
able to
> get that happening w/ Protege when I used that approach
with the
> RIM.
>
>
> Lloyd
>
> *Lloyd McKenzie
> *Consultant, Information Technology Services
> Gevity Consulting Inc.
>
> E: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:%2B1%20587-334-1110>
<tel:1-587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>>
> W: gevityinc.com <http://gevityinc.com>
<http://gevityinc.com/>
>
> *GEVITY
> **/Informatics for a healthier world /*
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential and
for the
> exclusive use of its intended recipients. If you have
received
> this communication by error, please notify the sender and
delete
> the message without copying or disclosing it*.*
>
> NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the opinions and
> positions expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect
> those of my employer, my clients nor the organizations
with whom
> I hold governance positions
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Anthony Mallia
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>
> Lloyd,____
>
> This is the pattern that is used by TopQuadrant in
its XSD
> to OWL conversion and the FHIR generation was shared by
> Cecil. The advantage of this mechanism is that all
> subclasses of Patient also are subclasses of the
Anonymous
> Ancestor which is the Class Expression
“hasPhoneNumber max 3
> PhoneNumber”.____
>
> __ __
>
> Having done that however the reasoned does not
invalidate if
> there are 4 phone numbers (i.e. Open World).____
>
> __ __
>
> Tony____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:*Lloyd McKenzie [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 07, 2015 10:48 AM
> *To:* Sajjad Hussain
> *Cc:* David Booth; w3c semweb HCLS; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Subject:* Re: Summary of HL7 RDF / W3C COI call: FHIR
> Ontology Requirements____
>
> __ __
>
> You can also close the world declaritively. If I have a
> Patient with 3 phone numbers, the instance can
declare it's
> a subclass of Patients with an upper bound of 3 on the
> number of phone numbers. You can do similar things
for the
> vocabulary. It's verbose, but it works.____
>
>
> ____
>
> *Lloyd McKenzie
> *Consultant, Information Technology Services
> Gevity Consulting Inc.____
>
> E: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:%2B1%20587-334-1110>
<tel:1-587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>>
> W: gevityinc.com <http://gevityinc.com>
<http://gevityinc.com/>____
>
> *GEVITY
> **/Informatics for a healthier world /*____
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is confidential
and for
> the exclusive use of its intended recipients. If you have
> received this communication by error, please notify the
> sender and delete the message without copying or
disclosing
> it*.*____
>
> NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the
opinions and
> positions expressed in this e-mail do not necessarily
> reflect those of my employer, my clients nor the
> organizations with whom I hold governance positions____
>
> __ __
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Sajjad Hussain
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:____
>
> I agree with Lloyd. However, we need to keep in mind that
> semantic web standard languages especially OWL rely
on Open
> World Assumption (OWA):
>
>
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#StructureOfOntologie
> s
>
> For validation purposes, while respecting OWA, it is
still
> possible validate data based on " Scoped Negation as
Failure":
>
>
> https://ai.wu.ac.at/~polleres/publications/poll-etal-2006b.pdf
>
> Best,
> Sajjad
>
> ******************************************____
>
>
>
> On 2/6/15 11:29 PM, Lloyd McKenzie wrote:____
>
> I expect we'll need to be able to handle both
open-world
> and closed-world versions of the ontology.
Closed-world
> is essential to validation. If a profile says
something
> is 1..1 and the instance doesn't have it, then that
> needs to be flagged as an error, which open-world
> wouldn't do. On the other hand, reasoners may
well need
> to operate with some degree of open-world. The fact
> something isn't present in the EHR doesn't
necessarily
> mean it isn't true. I'd be happy for us to include
> something like this: ____
>
> __ __
>
> SHOULD: OWL ontology should allow expressions
enforcing
> both closed world and open-world reasoning against
> instances.____
>
>
> ____
>
> *Lloyd McKenzie
> *Consultant, Information Technology Services
> Gevity Consulting Inc.____
>
> E: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> M: +1 587-334-1110 <tel:%2B1%20587-334-1110>
<tel:1-587-334-1110 <tel:1-587-334-1110>>
> W: gevityinc.com <http://gevityinc.com>
<http://gevityinc.com/>____
>
> *GEVITY
> **/Informatics for a healthier world /*____
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY – This communication is
confidential and
> for the exclusive use of its intended recipients.
If you
> have received this communication by error, please
notify
> the sender and delete the message without copying or
> disclosing it*.*____
>
> NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the
opinions
> and positions expressed in this e-mail do not
> necessarily reflect those of my employer, my
clients nor
> the organizations with whom I hold governance
> positions____
>
> __ __
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:20 PM, David Booth
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
> wrote:____
>
> Hi Sajjad,
>
> On 02/04/2015 07:12 AM, Sajjad Hussain wrote:____
>
> Hi All,
>
> Responding to Action # 2 carried during last call:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html#action02>
>
> I would suggest the following wording for FHIR
Ontology
> Requirement # 11
>
(http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements#11._Enable_Inference
>
> <http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements>)
>
> 11. Enable Inference
> (MUST) The FHIR ontology must enable OWL/RDFS
inference with
> monotonicity and open world assumption [1]
> [1]
> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/presentations/OWA.pdf
>
<http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/presentations/OWA.pdf>
>
> <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/presentations/OWA.pdf>____
>
>
> I would expect the closed world assumption to be used
> quite a lot to in data validation and perhaps other
> ways, so I would be uncomfortable having that as
a MUST
> requirement.
>
> David Booth____
>
> Best regards,
> Sajjad
>
> ***************************************************
> ____
>
>
> On 2/3/15 10:45 PM, David Booth wrote:____
>
> On today's call we almost finished working out
our FHIR
> ontology
> requirements. Only two points remain to be resolved:
>
> http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=FHIR_Ontology_Requirements
>
> - Sajjad suggested that the wording of requirement
> #11 be changed to
> be clearer, and agreed to suggest new wording.
Current
> wording:
> "Enable Inference: The FHIR ontology must enable
> OWL/RDFS inference."
>
> - Paul Knapp noted that requirement #16 is
related to
> requirement #2,
> and suggested that they might be merged.
>
> We did not get to other agenda today.
>
> The full meeting log is here:
> http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-hcls-minutes.html
>
> Thanks!
> David Booth
>
> ____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
***********************************************************************************
> Manage subscriptions - http://www.HL7.org/listservice
> View archives - http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its
> Unsubscribe -
>
http://www.HL7.org/tools/[email protected]&list=its
> Terms of use -
>
> http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules____
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
>
>
***********************************************************************************
> Manage your subscriptions <http://www.HL7.org/listservice> |
> View the archives <http://lists.HL7.org/read/?forum=its> |
> Unsubscribe
>
<http://www.HL7.org/tools/[email protected]&list=its>
> | Terms of use
>
> <http://www.HL7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm?ref=nav#listrules>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Hausam, MD
> Hausam Consulting LLC
> +1 (801) 949-1556 <tel:%2B1%20%28801%29%20949-1556>
<tel:%2B1%20%28801%29%20949-1556>
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>
>
