[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] FW: Looking to the Future of Data Science - NYTimes.

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Patrik Eklund <peklund@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:24:47 +0300
Message-id: <b001060fdb3d614d4a340028051b17ed@xxxxxxxxx>
Thank you, Hans, for your reply, and I like the foundations of your 
view. Your traffic example is of course also interesting.    (01)

> ... By scope of the data sets I mean what portion of reality does the 
> data set purport to represent.    (02)

The "portion of reality" I have worked with mostly has been nomenclature 
and ontology in health and social care. The scope of nomenclature in 
health care is easier as it is rooted in WHO's references classification 
together with the other classifications, where the scope then is 
diagnosis, functioning, drugs, lab/markers, etc. The scope of 
nomenclature is social care is harder as it indeed involves that 
"functioning" and behaviour. This dialogue between nomenclatures is very 
visible e.g. in the area of "active and healthy ageing". The more it's 
seniors and older persons, clearly the more its medical than social, 
because it moves more and more to severity of disorder. And similarly, 
the more it's about "teeniors" ("teenaged" seniors), the more it goes 
towards the "quantified self" movement, where emphasis is on 
“empowerment” and citizens/patients “managing their own data”. Focus is 
then not always just on health but on performance more in general. I 
even see a golf score app as such a quantified self app where I can add 
numbers in order to have golf shot stats and summaries about how I 
behave from the tee and around the green. Apple’s new Health Kit is 
launched as such a quantified self app and is made for promoting the use 
of Apple’s mobile phone. Apple mentions Mayo as a partner and also the 
Epic record system for potential integration but the profession is not 
convinced. Google's GoogleFit is maybe response also to Samsung’s Sami. 
Google’s approach is more device oriented than in Apple’s approach, and 
so is Sami, but Samsung’s approach is integrated to their overall scope 
of medical devices. Samsung has been working on medical devices already 
for a long time and is in fact in the same league as Philips, Siemens 
and GE. Microsoft’s HealthVault is closer to HealthKit but the ambition 
is broader obviously since the Microsoft Health unit has been around for 
quite a while. Microsoft understands health records better than Apple, 
and Microsoft indeed is operating systems and computer languages more 
than as compared to Apple, and more than Samsung. Another aspect here is 
the emerging mHealth market, where “mobile medical” devices and 
solutions will eventually need to go down the same path of approvals as 
compared to other medical devices and drugs. The approval procedures 
are, however, yet to be defined.    (03)

Our logical approach to health nomenclature is part of several EU 
activities (EIP AHA, AAL) and now also included in a number of H2020 PHC 
(Personalized Health Care) proposals.    (04)

To me this a fascinating scope since the logical approach can be 
extended (I think) into "many related scopes" and ages, and also down 
e.g. to assessment of adolescent learning. The "ontology dependent 
industry" seems not fully to understand this need of being more formal 
about the underlying structures, and I claim we focus too much on 
natural language at large.    (05)

As you may infer, I am indeed interested in understanding the relation 
between physical and mental well-being, capacities to learn and 
function, and as affecting individuals being part of group. We have a 
long way still to go, and the "ontology dependent industry" seems 
equally far away from broad solutions.    (06)

So I think you are indeed perfectly right on target about that "portion 
of reality". My take is to go from specific scopes, like health 
ontology, and to generalize from there. I also want to say I am not very 
fond of health ontology approaches like OpenClinical, OpenEHR or SNOMED 
CT. They are "too relational" so "structure" is basically missing. It 
becomes just graphs, and they do not possess explanatory power enough 
e.g. for those reference classifications.    (07)

> ... air traffic patterns from data sets ... differences in 
> representation and complexity of such data by the different sources    (08)

Some years ago I was involved in a larger project on crisis management 
and our contribution was related to interoperability of the "blue 
lights". Again we focus more on the emergency care "blue light" since 
there we have already some nomenclature, guidelines and care processes 
available. Anyway, the within and between blue lights dialogues are very 
interesting all the way from first responders up to management.    (09)

> ... how big a portion of what one is looking for does Big Data 
> represent? ... I'm not sure this is totally a question of logic.    (010)

I obviously agree on that "not totally", and saying logic is part of it, 
even if I think it plays a very important part. Logic is indeed part of 
the "logic of its ontology", and I mean logic in a much broader sense, 
yet formal. We have developed a "lative" view of logic. This is not well 
known, but it is our tools in what we do and develop. You will find a 
bit of this under GLIOC (www.glioc.com).    (011)

I often say we neglect "process" as in "information & process". 
"Information and logic languages" are quite well developed, but "process 
languages" are still in their infancy. We've used logic extension of 
BPMN to encode clinical guidelines, but we also realize it can be done 
in many different ways. When we speak of "big data" I indeed think we 
have neglected almost completely all those "big processes" within which 
"big information" is produced and utilized.    (012)

Best,    (013)

Patrik    (014)

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    (015)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>