[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [health-ont] Gentle Reminder of today's NHIN-RFI Conference Call

To: "[health-ont]" <health-ont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Nicolas F Rouquette <nicolas.rouquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:45:43 -0800
Message-id: <41DC19B7.7010704@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On the characteristics section, I would suggest adding something about:    (01)

- an infrastructure system (Mark was somewhat ambiguous about what 
"system" means and this is my guess) that permits the following 
open-source based processes:
 - content editing and retrieval
 - peer-review approval
 - formal analysis via constraint solvers and theorem proovers    (02)

On the solution proposed, I would suggest adding something about:    (03)

- tool-specific tutorials for accelerating the adoption and facilitating 
the learning curve process of various
  users not necessarily familiar with the underlying technology (i.e.,  
formal ontology, formal logic, categorization, etc...)    (04)

[this is important to establish value for the user community, i.e., 
patients, doctors, medical/academic researchers]    (05)

- value-added statements and justifications about the specific relevance 
and merit of the proposed technology to solve NHII's specific challenges    (06)

[this is important to establish value for the sponsors paying for this 
infrastructure]    (07)

There is one important issue that should be explicitly mentioned and I'm 
not sure how to state it correctly.    (08)

Each concept in the ontology (e.g., person) needs a semantic definition 
context to explain what
that concept means in a parsimonous and comprehensible way to users and 
formal analysis tools
(this is the notion of Chomsky's comprehensible input that, if not 
guaranteed, jeopardizes communication and understanding).    (09)

One big problem here is the scope of that semantic context required to 
define the meaning of a concept.
Part of this problem is something that ontoclean addresses with 
meta-property tags but part of this problem
also aludes to the boundary that we use in defining that scope. For 
example, a lot of knowledge about medicine
stems from our experience on earth while a lot of medical issues in the 
near future will come from experiences
in space where the context is significantly different and often requires 
revisiting assumptions about relevance of
effects that either don't exist on earth or are of insignificant 
importance. Weightlessness is one often cited factor
that induces bone loss, something that is rare to experience on earth 
(unless you happen to have a personality that
seeks experiencing unusually frequent moments of weightlessness in 
various earthly activities such as bungee jumping,
roller coaster, acrobatic aircraft, etc...)    (010)

-- Nicolas.    (011)

Mark Musen wrote:    (012)

> On Dec 22, 2004, at 4:17 PM, Bob Smith wrote:
>> Excellent start on structuring content for our initial thesis (Problem
>> Statement)!
> I agree!  I've made a few comments on the Wiki:  
>     Mark
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives:
> Community Files:
> To  Post: mailto:health-ont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Wiki:
>    (013)

Msg Archives:
Community Files:
To  Post: mailto:health-ont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Wiki:    (014)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>