The HITOP Work Group goal of recommending valid ontological software to be
tested in high priority health IT applications like EHR-clinical decision
support systems or
e-Prescribing must be approached now, using demonstrated, proven
program(s), in order to possibly be considered for the Office of the National
Coordinator (ONC). (01)
In terms of the scope of interoperability, I am monitoring the NASA project to
develop an EHR-system for all its employees, shared from the Indian Health
Service RPMS, the VistA Computerized Patient Record System-based program that
was shared from the VA. Cathy Angotti is the NASA project leader. (02)
Also, a former colleage is working on a future space-based EHR-system aimed for
the Mars mission. Hence, the comments relating ontological software with
interoperability on a univeral business scale has merit. (03)
I would encourge that the identification of actual projects demonstrating the
feasibility of applying ontology approaches in major health IT projects should
be advanced now, including their presentation and review by the HITOP Work
Group. (04)
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: ontac-forum-bounces
Sent: 01/14/2006 12:02 PM
To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable (06)
At 05:50 PM 1/14/2006, you wrote:
>Barry,
>
>There is no way to design an ontology for one field, say
>bioinformatics, that does not involve interoperability
>with *every* other field of endeavor known to mankind. (07)
I think this is a reductio ad absurdum of John's position. (08)
>BS> Is this work designed to support *all* possible applications?
> > (Pat?) Is it designed to support the work of, say, rocket
> > scientists?
>
>Let's start with medicine. That involves everything that
>physicians of every specialty do, ranging from general
>practitioners, to surgery, to research, and all the
>specialists for every organ, body part, and disease.
>
>That leads us to biology, with emphasis on humans, but
>also with research on primates, which are cheaper than
>humans, but still expensive to maintain. Rats and mice
>are much cheaper mammals, but some of the research can be
>performed on even cheaper animals, such as fruit flies,
>the ever-popular C. Elegans, and even lowly yeast cells.
>
>The pathogens lead us to bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fungi,
>insects, and a wide range of worms and worm-like organisms.
>Then the methods for treating them include almost every
>branch of chemistry for the development of pharmaceuticals.
>But there are also many kinds of mechanical, electrical,
>and computerized medical appliances that involve many
>more branches of physics and engineering.
>
>A major use for the ontology is to systematize patient
>records from physicians and hospitals around the world.
>That introduces IT issues of databases, networks, and
>security concerns about sensitive information. The same
>computers and databases that hold patient records also
>process the patients' billing and scheduling, together
>with links to all the insurance plans, HMOs, Medicare,
>and their payment allowances for each procedure.
>
>As for rocket science, don't forget that NASA has to deal
>with extreme conditions for the astronauts' life support.
>The requirements for supporting the astronauts and their
>equipment impose critical constraints on the size, shape,
>structure, and maneuverability of the space vehicles.
>
> > The issue is, given your principles, whether anything
> > could possibly be left in the central hub. It seems not.
>
>I admit that we're getting close to the starting point of
>zero axioms, but the principle of distinguishing "black box"
>and "white box" components can support some separability.
>If we organize the ontology in hubs, we should consider
>clusters of hubs -- say superhubs -- for related subfields.
>
> > ONTAC-WG has, I think, no specialists in quantum mechanics,
> > rocket science, magnetic resonance imaging (etc.) in its
> > target audience. Let us therefore simply forget quantum
> > mechanics, etc., and concentrate on those domains which
> > (all of us, I take it) are specialists in...
>
>Nobody can be a specialist in every possible area, but we must
>not only consider today's specialties, but also specialties
>that may arise in the next 20 to 40 years. (09)
And the specialisms already existing in distinct galaxies, I presume.
BS (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (012)
|