HealthOntologyMapping/ConferenceCall 2005 02 11

[HEALTH-ONT] Health Ontology Pilot Project Kick-off Conference Call - Tue 2005-02-11    (8LZ)

Conference Call Details    (8M0)

• Subject: [HEALTH-ONT] Health Ontology Pilot Project conference call Tue 2005-02-11    (8M1)

• Agenda Comments:    (8M2)
  • this is a work session for the SICoP-Ontolog joint project to do a Health Ontology Mapping pilot for FHA-ONCHIT. This is probably the last group meeting prior to our deliverable due date of Feb. 14, 2005.    (8M3)
  • please post any suggested agenda items to the call wiki page and upload any material to be shared to the list, to the wiki or by WebDAV upload prior to the meeting    (8M4)
  • VNC session (if needed) will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/    (8M5)
    • view-only password: "ontolog"    (8M6)
    • view-and-control pw: to be supplied during session as needed    (8M7)
  • Wiki page for this call (i.e. this page) is at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HealthOntologyMapping/ConferenceCall_2005_02_11    (8M8)
• Date: Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2005    (8M9)
• Start Time: 10:30 AM PST / 1:30 PM EST World Clock    (8MA)
• Expected Call Duration: 1 ~ 1.5 hour    (8MB)
• Dial-in Number: 1-702-851-3330 (Las Vegas, Nevada)    (8MC)
• Participant Access Code: "686564#"    (8MD)

Attendees    (8ME)

• Attended:    (8MF)
  • PeterYim    (8MG)
  • KurtConrad    (8MH)
  • SamsonTu    (8MI)
  • BobSmith    (8MJ)
  • BrandNiemann    (8MK)
  • PatCassidy    (8ML)

• Expecting:    (8MM)

• Regrets:    (8MN)
  • MarkMusen    (8MO)
  • MaryGoldstein    (8MP)

Agenda Ideas    (8MQ)

• we could possibly do a dry run of the remote EON/ATHENA demo (if Samson & Peter can get the setup in place in time) and work through how best to get our message across through a remote demo setting. (--ppy/2005.02.09)    (8MR)

Resources    (8MS)

• NhinRfi - the RFI response project page    (8MT)

• HealthOntologyMapping - potential new project page    (8MU)

• Background material provided by BrandNiemann 2005.01.26 & 2005.02.04    (8MV)
  • Health Domains (HHS / ONCHIT, Jan. 26, 2005)    (8MW)
  • Health Domain Mapping to HL7 Functions    (8MX)
  • Standard Vocabularies in Health Care (KathyLesh, Kevric, 2004.12.09)    (8MY)
  • Formal Taxonomies for the U.S. Government (Daconta, January 26, 2005)    (8MZ)
  • Netcentric Semantic Linking: An Approach for Enterprise Semantic Interoperability (Pulvermacher et al., MITRE, Oct. 2004)    (8N0)
  • Brand's DRAFT Presentation for 2/22/05    (8N1)
    • updated draft (as of 2005.02.13) now available from the above link.    (8N2)

• EON/ATHENA project information    (8N3)
  • Project website - http://www.smi.stanford.edu/projects/eon/    (8N4)
  • Architecture - http://www.smi.stanford.edu/projects/eon/96SCAMCMusen/sld007.htm    (8N5)

Agenda & Proceedings    (8N6)

1) Welcome & confirmation of agenda    (8N7)

• BobSmith took the chair and welcomed everyone.    (8N8)

2) Appointment of secretary to take minutes    (8N9)

• PeterYim volunteered    (8NA)

3) Roll-call of participants    (8NB)

• see above    (8NC)

4) Follow-up from last meeting    (8ND)

• Action Plan - ref: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HealthOntologyMapping/ConferenceCall_2005_02_04#nid093    (8NE)
  • BobSmith Primary PPT Presentation available SCOPE_28 . Presenters will still need Samson's slides.    (8NF)
  • Part-1: the EON demo, along with the EON architecture (action: Samson)    (8NG)
  • Part-2: categories of the Ontology diagram that applies to EHR - ref. figure 2 of the abovementioned Mitre paper - how/where does Ontologies fit? - maybe some of what Mark will present in his upcoming 2005.04.22 Stanford Seminar on "THE ROLE OF ONTOLOGIES IN THE ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD" would be very appropriate. (action: Mark)    (8NH)
  • Part-3: can we help them to use SUMO to do better conceptual definitions - contrast various time models (e.g., upper ontology, hl-7, federal enterprise architecture model)... remedialization impact (action: Pat - by close-of-business Mon 2005.02.07 PST)    (8NI)
    • ref: HL7 TimingEvent    (8NJ)
  • integrate & package for presentation (action: Bob & Kurt)    (8NK)
  • presentation: Brand & Peter (in DC) with Samson (remotely) - possibly Wed 2005.02.23 morning, plus subsequent opportunities.    (8NL)

•    (8NM)
  • Brand: what our audience need are:    (8NN)
    • they need to see how ontologies can help them in terms of defining their architecture    (8NO)
    • how ontologies will help drive interoperability    (8NP)
    • they need to avoid remedial work down the road    (8NQ)

5) Project Discussion    (8NR)

• Status Review    (8NS)

•    (8NT)
  • Part-1: EON-ATHENA demo & architecture    (8NU)
    • demo through the VNC server (during the meeting) - http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/ view-only pw = "ontolog"    (8NV)
    • EON-ATHENA intro & architecture slides - http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/EON-ATHENA--SamsonTu_20050110a.ppt    (8NW)
    • Samson will provide an update on the slides over the weekend    (8NX)
      • Samson: done. See: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/eon-athena--samsontu_20050213.ppt - review/comments solicited.    (8NY)

•    (8NZ)
  • Part-2: Ontology Categories    (8O0)
    • Citing section 3.2 of the Pulvermacher-MITRE Oct-2004 paper Ontologies may exist at many levels of abstraction. We group ontologies into three broad categories of upper, mid-level and domain ontologies. Figure 2 (see below) is a graphical depiction of these notional levels along with some sample concepts that may be found at each level.    (8O1)
      • An upper ontology, as defined by, is a high-level, domain-independent ontology, providing a framework by which disparate systems may use a common knowledge base and from which more domain-specific ontologies may be derived. The concepts expressed in such an ontology are intended to be basic and universal concepts to ensure generality and expressivity for a wide area of domains. An upper ontology is often characterized as representing common sense concepts, i.e. those that are basic for human understanding of the world [KSD01]. Thus, an upper ontology is limited to concepts that are meta, generic, abstract and philosophical. Standard upper ontologies are also sometimes referred to as foundational ontologies or universal ontologies. An example of an upper ontology would be SUMO (Suggested Upper Merged Ontology).    (8O2)
      • A mid-level ontology serves as a bridge between abstract concepts defined in the upper ontology and low-level domain specific concepts specified in a domain ontology. While ontologies may be mapped to one another at any level, the mid-level and upper ontologies are intended to provide a mechanism to simplify the mapping of concepts across domains. Mid-level ontologies may provide more concrete representations of abstract concepts found in the upper ontology. This ontology category also encompasses the set of ontologies of commonly used concepts, such as Time and Location, which are sometimes referred to as utility ontologies. An example of a mid-level ontology would be the HL7 RIM (Reference Information Model).    (8O3)
      • A domain ontology specifies concepts particular to a domain of interest and represents those concepts and their relationships from a domain specific perspective. While the same concept may exist in multiple domains, the representations may widely vary due to the differing domain contexts and assumptions. Domain ontologies may be composed by importing mid-level ontologies. They may also extend concepts defined in mid-level or upper ontologies. Reusing well established ontologies in the development of a domain ontology allows one to take advantage of the semantic richness of the relevant concepts and logic already built into the reused ontology. Using common mid-level and upper ontologies is intended to ease the process of integrating or mapping domain ontologies. An example of a domain ontology would be the the EON Guideline model in our demo. SnoMed can be looked at as a set of domain ontologies too. LOINC too.    (8O4)

•    (8O5)
  •    (8O6)
    • ref. figure 2 of the Pulvermacher-MITRE Oct-2004 paper -    (8O7)

•    (8O9)
  • Part-3: Discussion on the representation of the concept "time"    (8OA)
    • HL7-time discussion (by PatCassidy) - http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/time/HL7-time--PatCassidy_20050210c.doc    (8OB)
      • example: HL7 TimingEvent    (8OC)
    • WordNet-time - http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/time/WordNet-time_20050210.html    (8OD)
    • SUMO-Time -    (8OE)
      • time : http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/time/SUMO-time_20050210.html    (8OF)
      • TimePoint : http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/time/SUMO-TimePoint_20050210.html    (8OG)
      • TimePosition : http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/time/SUMO-TimePosition_20050210.html    (8OH)
      • TimeMeasure : http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/time/SUMO-TimeMeasure_20050210.html (see also: TimeMeasure-screen-shot)    (8OI)
      • TimeInterval : http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/time/SUMO-TimeInterval_20050210.html    (8OJ)
      • TimeDuration : http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/health-ont/pilot-demo_Feb-2005/time/SUMO-TimeDuration_20050210.html    (8OK)
    • we may want to pull up, graphically, the SUMO time-related concepts in a protege presentation    (8OL)
      • again, do screen shots (of the protege piece)    (8OM)
        • Peter: done (20005.02.14_11:12) - see: skif-time-scrn1, skif-time-scrn2, skif-time-scrn3, skif-time-scrn4 & sumo-TimeMeasure-scrn5.    (8ON)
  • make the argument that each domain (or even each working group) should not need to "re-define" what time is, over-and-over again ... but that's what's happenning!    (8OO)
  • extend from an upper ontology, rather than repeating the definitions within the domain ontology    (8OP)
  • argue for doing "open" standards work in a CoP setting    (8OQ)

•    (8OR)
  • Part-4: packaging the presentation to get our message across    (8OS)

• Discussion    (8OT)
  • Brand met with the FHA people yesterday (2005.02.10), we are open to presnt either on 2/22 as part of the Expedition Workshop or as a separate meeting. Expecting to be spending more time with these people in the next few months.    (8OU)
  • although they are not calling it "ontologies", the FHA are actually    (8OV)
  • Brand will be in the "technical architecture" review group for the RFI responses. That group will be chaired by John Sullivan of EPA.    (8OW)

•    (8OX)
  • Brand ran through his 2/22 draft presentation    (8OY)
    • Peter suggested mentioning of semantic representatin above OWL (like FOL, ... Pat: SWRL, ...)    (8OZ)
    • Pat suggested mentioning also that legacy databases can be mapped to ontologies and made more useful with a semantic interoperability approach    (8P0)
    • slide 14 lists the 7 steps described in the earlier Kathy Lesh presentation    (8P1)
      • Pat suggested 3~5 could be done on a tool platform (Brand, which Protege is described as a candidate. Samson menitoned just refer to it as "Protege" and "Protege-2000")    (8P2)
    • vendors: https://www.schafertmd.com/swans/    (8P3)

•    (8P4)
  • Samson's demo    (8P5)
    • will start with a few slides (which will be prepared by Samson , and incorporated in a overall presentation slide deck)    (8P6)
      • Brand also suggests that screen shots be captured (where a live demo is inserted) for subsequent viewers who dont' get to see the demo    (8P7)

• Issues & Resolution    (8P8)

6) Other business    (8P9)

7) Action Items    (8PA)

8) Next meeting date and adjourn    (8PB)

• call adjourned 12:16pm PST    (8PC)

 --
 minutes captured in real time on this wiki by PeterYim
 ppy / 2005.02.11 12:19pm PST    (8PD)