Draft agenda for tomorrow's CIMI MTF call

[Stan Huff]

This is a reminder that the CIMI Modelling Taskforce will be meeting this Thursday 20:00 - 22:00 UTC on GoToMeeting id 636-685-264 (password: cimi).

 

Proposed Agenda Items

• General news
  • General meeting plans
    • We will meet Saturday and Sunday (Oct 3-4) at the Atlanta HL7 meeting
    • Meet once a year in association with IHTSDO – probably not this year
  • Report on joint CIMI/FHIR/HSPC meeting (Stan)
• Follow up from previous meetings  – All
  • Progress on updating lab models – Patrick
  • Concept creation tool update – Harold and Patrick
  • A proposal about how “coded_label” can be incorporated into AOM – Thomas Beale
  • An example of how more general patterns could be used to represent allowed variations for lab models with methods and challenge information – Thomas Beale
• Discussion of options for modeling Health Issues, Diagnoses, Problems, Findings, Assertions, etc.
  • Summary of conference call with Stefan Schulz on Clinical Findings and Clinical Situations
  • Continue discussions
    • Propose a preferred style for negation
    • Review and discuss more options for representations
• Any other business

 

[Thomas Beale]

All,

I won't make it onto this call, due to being in yet another long plane flight (to Australia this time).

Am digesting some of Stefan Shulz's recent papers and will try to add some useful thoughts on negation etc. Currently it's quite clear to me it should not be in ontology, since it's an epistemic position, not an ontological reality. The picture gets muddier when you think of creating ontologies of information, situated under OBO's IAO (Information Artefact Ontology), as we are going to do in openEHR....

- thomas

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cimi-modelling-taskforce" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cimi-modelling-tas...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cimi-modelli...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cimi-modelling-taskforce.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer +44 7792 403 613

Specification Program, openEHR Honorary Research Fellow, UCL Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS Health IT blog

[Gerard Freriks]

Ontologies are there to define the meaning of concepts.

Ontologies are  NOT about what gets documented by a person about a persons perception about reality.

Ontologies define the meaning of concepts represented by a human readable label and optionally a unique code.

Ontologies create a computer defined dictionary where each concept is like a lemma in the dictionary.

Dictionaries usually do not have lemma’s that express (part of) the epistemology of a datum.

One can not find a lemma in the dictionary that represents the fact that a specific finding was observed (looked for) but NOT found/noticed with your great-ant 50 years ago on a sunny afternoon in the autumn as the result of query.

Ontologies (and for that matter Dictionaries) do not define epistemological context.

The define concepts that we can use for the creation of complex statements/narrative using a syntax.

There are more reasons why we need to delineate precisely the boundary between narrative, using syntax and words used in that syntax, and the definition of those words.

Lemma’s in dictionaries and concepts in an ontology have Universal nature.

Narrative, syntax and words describe a specific datum in its context; these are Particular in nature.

CIMI is about archetype patterns to capture clinical narrative.

What is not observed, what is not documented, is not there and can not be inferred logically by an automated process. This is an example of the Closed world Assumption.

Only humans can make inferences about it.

In the case of ontologies a computational process allows the machine to make inferences and create new facts. Or find inconsistencies. This is an example of the Open world Assumption.

Treating Closed world facts in an Open world environment looks funny to me. It is somehow a not logical and possibly problem creating situation..

In other words: I agree with Thomas.

Before we know it things a muddy.

Negations/not present situations are part of the epistemological context and never an ontology.

(exceptions not withstanding)

Gerard Freriks

g.fr...@me.com