Good work, Adam. (01)
Bob/Adam, may I also suggest: (02)
1. we advocate the use of formal domain ontologies to reach the
objectives of "successful interoperability through shared meaning" at
least as much as we advocate the use of a formal upper ontology in the
writing (just trying to make it more balanced - given that Ontolog is
about applications of ontologies, and more specifically domain
ontologies, rather than an upper ontology group like IEEE-SUO-WG or
SICoP-CUO-WG.) (03)
2. we strengthen the argument for "open source" to include (besides your
"will mean that academic institutions will be able to employ student
resources to assist in infrastructure development, research and use,
...") its benefits in potentially better interoperability, higher
quality and reliability, lower cost, and that it provides a framework
for fostering innovation and continuous improvement. We might also
consider including in the bibliography, the MITRE study of "Free and
Open Source Software in the DoD" as a reference (see links:
http://web-services.gov/UACEW_FOSS.ppt &
http://techcenter.gmu.edu/programs/conferences/mitre_mar03.pdf ) (04)
3. we include our "open standard" proposition (ref:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NhinRfiThesis#nid086) here in
these sections, somewhere. (05)
Thanks. -ppy
-- (06)
Bob Smith wrote Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:55:06 -0800: (07)
>Hi Adam,
>
>Great !
>
>Your well formed arguments build a good case for the Thesis at a policy
>level.
>
>Hopefully, we can organize and align the other parts and circulate the
>resulting Ontolog-Health draft later this afternoon.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: health-ont-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:health-ont-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Pease
>Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:37 PM
>To: Health-Ont
>Subject: Re: [health-ont] Progress towards our Ontolog RFI
>
>Folks,
> Here's my take on the first three questions in the RFI.
>
>Adam
>
>
>1.The primary impetus for considering a NHIN is to achieve interoperability
>of health information technologies used in the mainstream delivery of
>health care in America. Please provide your working definition of a NHIN as
>completely as possible, particularly as it pertains to the information
>contained in or used by electronic health records. Please include key
>barriers to this interoperability that exist or are envisioned, and key
>enablers that exist or are envisioned. This description will allow
>reviewers of your submission to better interpret your responses to
>subsequent questions in this RFI regarding interoperability.
>
> A key aspect of successful interoperability is shared meaning. The
>current state of practice in information systems is to develop interfaces
>between pairs of systems, where the interface strictly addresses the
>information of concern only to that pair. Efforts to employ common syntax
>are a necessary start, but do not solve the interoperability problem.
> Much effort is currently being spent on redefining data models in XML
>syntax. Sharing a standard syntax can greatly improve the ease of
>integration across a large infrastructure. However, shared syntax is not
>sufficient without shared meaning. For that reason, an increasing amount
>of effort in the IT industry is being spent on developing shared XML
>schema. However, that too is insufficient, since such efforts tend to
>address constrained domains that are likely to break when requirements
>expand. Such efforts, by being specific to particular industries, also
>fail to reuse the best and most general information models that exist
>across domains. Lastly, even when schemas are shared and terms are
>carefully defined in English (or another human language), the meaning of a
>term is only as clear as its English definition. English sentences are
>invariably subject to ambiguity, vagueness and issues of how context
>affects meaning and interpretation.
> The solution we envision has several parts, to address each of the key
>barriers just described. We believe that shared meaning is a critical
>aspect of interoperability. To have shared meaning we must have not only a
>common syntax, but also a common vocabulary. That common vocabulary should
>be defined in terms of the broadest and most general foundation concepts,
>in order to have robustness when requirements change or expand. The common
>vocabulary must be defined in a formal and computable language, so that
>interpretation of meaning can be supported by computers, and not subject to
>human interpretation. The common vocabulary should reuse as much general
>conceptual infrastructure as possible, in order to amortize costs over the
>widest possible set of interfaces, and to ensure the quality that comes
>from repeated use and testing of common information products.
> Specifically, we believe that a formal upper ontology, defined in logic,
>is a necessary component in achieving large scale interoperability. We
>envision a hierarchy of ontologies that build from a common semantic
>foundation.
>
>
>2.What type of model could be needed to have a NHIN that: allows widely
>available access to information as it is produced and used across the
>health care continuum; enables interoperability and clinical health
>information exchange broadly across most/all HIT solutions; protects
>patients' individually-identifiable health information; and allows vendors
>and other technology partners to be able to use the NHIN in the pursuit of
>their business objectives? Please include considerations such as roles of
>various private- and public- sector entities in your response.
>
>A fully formal and logical model will help to ensure that clients and
>participants in a common health network will be able to understand how to
>connect to the common information model. The current practice often
>involves discussion with model "experts" or authors in order to understand
>fully what is meant by each term. A formal model will help ensure that all
>information and context is fully explicit, and nothing is left unstated and
>only in the head of the designer.
> We believe that a completely open information model is also a
>necessity. Vendors must be able to use the common model without fee in
>order to spur adoption. The open source model will mean that academic
>institutions will be able to employ student resources to assist in
>infrastructure development, research and use, which would be much less
>likely if models were costly and proprietary.
> While a formal, common information model does not directly address
>privacy issues, the use of a general upper model will ensure that many
>real-world aspects that have an impact on privacy can be successfully
>modeled, and therefore be taken into account in an integrated system that
>handles privacy concerns in both storage and access.
>
>
>3.What aspects of a NHIN could be national in scope (i.e., centralized
>commonality or controlled at the national level), versus those that are
>local or regional in scope (i.e., decentralized commonality or controlled
>at the regional level)? Please describe the roles of entities at those
>levels. (Note: "national" and "regional" are not meant to imply federal or
>local governments in this context.)
>
>We believe that a hierarchy of information models will be needed. The
>upper ontology will be centralized and standard. We believe that there
>will be significant benefit in having some standardized, centralized body
>of health ontology information as well. If there is a proliferation of
>vocabularies with overlapping semantics, we will not be able to achieve the
>goal of interoperability.
> There have been several barriers to large common information models in
>the past
>
>- The language in which models have been stated is insufficiently
>expressive, leading to "overloading" of language aspects for uses they were
>not intended
>- The language is insufficiently explicit, leading to a "grab bag" of
>models which are not provably overlapping, but which in fact are mutually
>redundant or inconsistent
>- The language is insufficiently formal, requiring human experts to
>understand the implicit definitions of terms in the model in order to
>assess whether model additions are redundant or contradictory
>- The model doesn't inherit from a common upper model, leading to
>duplication of general purpose concepts, and a proliferation of
>incompatible upper level concepts which each build in different simplifying
>assumptions.
>
>At 12:33 PM 1/16/2005, Bob Smith wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>We are making significant progress with the Managerial and Organizational
>>questions, and hope to see the questions from the other members of our
>>
>>
>project.
>
>
>>Please upload or eMail me your responses (best in Word, as that is the
>>format Dr. Brailer requested).
>>
>>If you have questions, please call me at 714 536 1084
>>
>>Thanks, and looking forward to your responses.
>>
>>Bob Smith
>>
>>
>
>----------------------------
>Adam Pease
>http://www.ontologyportal.org - Free ontologies and tools
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/health-ont/
>Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/NHIN-RFI/
>To Post: mailto:health-ont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NhinRfi
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/health-ont/
>Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/NHIN-RFI/
>To Post: mailto:health-ont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NhinRfi
>
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/health-ont/
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/NHIN-RFI/
To Post: mailto:health-ont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NhinRfi (09)
|