|To:||"'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||"Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 22 May 2013 12:14:21 -0700|
Yet another complexity is that relations can be uncertain. That uncertainty is often described in language. For example, EHR data contains accounts of uncertain diagnoses very often. That recorded information in English is highly dependent on the way that the physician uses language.
From a report on EHR use by physicians:
For the study, researchers from the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, the University of Texas at Austin and the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle interviewed 28 physicians working at the same ambulatory care organization about their perceptions of uncertainty and their EHR use patterns. Specialties represented included primary care, endocrinology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, neurology and podiatry.
Based on answers received, the researchers divided the physicians into three groups:
Uncertainty reductionists: Physicians who used EHR information primarily to reduce uncertainty about patients, and gave priority to codified patient information above all else
Uncertainty absorbers: Physicians who used EHR information as a catalyst for engineering additional dialogue with others involved in the care process, and gave priority to co-created information or data that was "nearly missed during patient-physician encounters
Uncertainty hybrids: Physicians who placed a high priority on both codified EHR data and the accompanying care process involving colleagues.
I can forward the entire clipping and a reference to the report if anyone is interested. Contact me offline for that info.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
Phil and Ed,
These two threads address closely related topics.
> that doesn't address the issue of whether English is
> appropriate or optimal for this purpose.
Any NL is useful for the people who speak it. But all NLs are
quirky, and no NL is significantly better or worse than any other
as a general knowledge representation language.
> "hasDisease" and "hasPossession" are much better. But they're not
> English. They are a part of a special vocabulary with roots in English.
> Users have to read the documentation, as Doug noted elsewhere.
I agree. But don't assume that users read documentation. Note the
universal proverb: "When all else fails, read the documentation."
> I think there's room for better solutions -- solutions that
> could also be applied in disciplines that are not normally
> discussed in this forum.
I agree, but it varies from one domain to another. For any subject,
the subject-matter experts are, by definition, the experts.
> a popular misconception that arises from thinking that
> models follow naturally from careful natural language.
Yes. I encourage the use of controlled NLs as an interface
to semantic systems. But the normative version should always
be some formally defined logic.
> SBVR makes this mistake: treating 'has' as a 'verb concept'.
> As John says, the verb *concept* is 'has sister' or 'has instance'.
SBVR is an interesting use of controlled English. But they made
the mistake of using the CNL the definitive form.
In English, 'be', 'have', and 'do' are classified as verbs, but their
syntax is distinctly different from "normal" verbs, and they have
very little semantic content. They should not be used by themselves
as relation names.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[ontolog-forum] Labeling relations and grover models (merger of two threads), John F Sowa|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Labeling relations and grover models (merger of two threads), Ed Barkmeyer|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Labeling relations and grover models (merger of two threads), John F Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Labeling relations and grover models (merger of two threads), Ed Barkmeyer|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|