Evolving Standards PeterYim 20050613

Evolving Data Models and Standards: 

Evolving Data Models and Standards - collaborating to achieve shared understanding and semantic interoperability June 13, 2005 – MITRE, McLean, VA. Peter P. Yim andlt;peter_yim@cim3.comandgt; Co-convener, Ontolog Forum President andamp; CEO, CIM Engineering, Inc. ('CIM3') (v 1.02) Presentation to the first eGov DRM Public Forum:

Who understands all of the alphabet soup? … and the jargon?: 

Who understands all of the alphabet soup? … and the jargon? ebXML CCTS ISO / IEC 11179 SCL: Simple Common Logic

answer: (probably) No One!: 

answer: (probably) No One! … should we be worried? … No … but then, the immediate next moves are crucial!

“Nothing Replaces Anything”… Richard Dalton, IFTF : 

'Nothing Replaces Anything'… Richard Dalton, IFTF

Evolving Data Model & Standards: 

Evolving Data Model andamp; Standards Reflecting: Broader scope Finer granularity More rigor More expressive Higher levels of abstraction greater 'formality' Supporting: Better automation Better Integration Ease-of-use Better human-to-machine interaction Machine-to-machine interaction Machine inference … maybe, eventually 'machine intelligence' (between quotes) … this is not going to stop (or even slow down) any time soon, if anything, the rate will only speed up on us.

Language Formality & Expressiveness: 

Language Formality andamp; Expressiveness OWL+ SWRL, KIF Is Disjoint Subclass of with transitivity property Has Narrower Meaning Than Is Sub-Classification of Is Subclass of Relational Model, XML source: Leo Obrst, MITRE – Jan. 2004

Plenty of good work going …: 

Plenty of good work going … Yesterday’s good work becomes the foundation for today’s work Today’s good work will be the foundation for tomorrow’s new work will just layer on top of the old … and life goes on … Technology and standards work that way too! Plenty of good people out there too!

. . . We should enlist distributed collaboration (i.e. our “collective intelligence”) to the rescue.: 

. . . We should enlist distributed collaboration (i.e. our 'collective intelligence') to the rescue. Sure … it’s already way too complex, and it’ll only get worse But, then, you don’t have to do this all by yourself we can have communities of practice (CoP’s) and task teams to take this on, together After recognizing the problem, what we need is to: Identify and pool together the resources (people, skillset, funding, …) Form virtual teams (in what some calls, 'fishnet organizations') Come up with the appropriate process and governance Augment them with the right tools, and Put them to work in a collaborative work environment One caveat: Didn’t we say 'no one really understands it all' ?

introducing: Ontolog (#): 

introducing: Ontolog (#) Ontolog is an open, international, virtual community of practice, whose membership will: Discuss practical issues and strategies associated with the development and application of both formal and informal ontologies. Identify ontological engineering approaches that might be applied to the UBL effort, as well as to the broader domain of eBusiness standardization efforts. Strive to advance the field of ontological engineering and semantic technologies, and to help move them into main stream applications. An example:

[CCT-Representation] Project (#): 

[CCT-Representation] Project (#) Goal: To influence the adoption of ontologies and ontological engineering methodologies in eBusiness standards.   Mission: To establish an Ontological Basis for ebXML Core Component Types ('CCT') using the methodologies the [ontolog-forum] has established for the UblOntology project; engage representation and participation from the ontological engineering and standards community (particularly from the standards community that developed and implemented the core component types); and, to produce a reference CCT ontology and a report on findings and recommendations for submission to UN/CEFACT CCTS (and possibly the Harmonization) working group(s). Deliverables: a reference ontology of approved ebXML Core Component Types ('CCTONT') a report on findings and recommendations regarding the current CCT specifications Continuing work: With the KIF-based CCTONT as the normative ontology, start developing/translating/mapping it (in a 'lossless' or 'lossy' manner) to other languages and representations/languages/formats -- including, but not limited to (as resources and skillsets permit): OWL, XML/XSD, RDF/S, UML2/OCL, UMM/UML Class Diagram, SQL, ... and continuously improve on that. Pilots / Cases in point (1)

[CCT-Rep] Project Results: 

[CCT-Rep] Project Results Focused work on the ebXML CCTS approved CCT’s: 10 Core Component Types, and their 44 Supplementary Components 8 step project plan Over 20 members (active and observing); broad representation: from multiple standards working groups; government and civilian efforts; ontologists and domain experts; … Learning and recommendations reported at the Semantic Harmonization Panel of EIDX Conference Dec. 2004 (4AH) Feedback and Recommendation forwarded to UN/CEFACT CCTS-WG Jan. 2005 (4AK)

CCT-Rep Project – Worksheet and Ontology: 

CCT-Rep Project – Worksheet and Ontology

CCT-Rep Project – example: defining URI: 

CCT-Rep Project – example: defining URI

CCTONT – Protégé version: 

CCTONT – Protégé version Thanks to Pat Cassidy, MICRA

Validation Tool (Screenshot): 

Validation Tool (Screenshot) Thanks to Peter Denno, NIST Source: Peter Denno, NIST / Nov. 2004

XMDR Project (#): 

XMDR Project (#) Collaborative, interagency effort EPA, USGS, NCI, Mayo Clinic, DOD, LBNL …andamp; others Extending ISO 11179 Metadata Registry with formal semantics First using description logic (OWL), and eventually supporting full first-order logic (nascent Common Logic) Prototype includes inference as well as text search Using Apache, Subversion, Lucene, Jena, Xerces, etc. Variety of complex content, including Defense Technology Information Center (DTIC) Thesaurus, National Cancer Institute (NCI) Thesaurus andamp; Data Elements, General Multilingual Environmental Thesaurus (GEMET), Environmental Data Registry (EDR) administered items, ISO 3166 Country Codes, USGS Geographic Names Many Players, Many Interests…Shared Context (Source: Kevin Keck / XMDR.org / Jun. 2005) Pilots / Cases in point (2)

[NHIN-RFI] Response & Pilot Project: 

[NHIN-RFI] Response andamp; Pilot Project Ontolog-StanfordMedicalInformatics-SICoP joint effort Collaboratively authored the argument and a set of recommendations for the HHS/FHA and ONCHIT to adopt ontological engineering approaches, a common upper ontologies, open standards, open technology and an open community process to develop the NHIN of the future 20 members (active and observing); broad representation: Involvement of ontologists, clinical and healthcare system experts; with advice from leadership of standards working groups; government and citizen efforts; … RFI response was delivered on Jan. 18, 2005 (#) subsequent pilot/demo/presentation effort staged to reinforce our position (#) Pilots / Cases in point (3)

Examples of Time Formalization: 

Examples of Time Formalization WordNet Time (Noun) SUMO HL-7* Time taxonomy fragment TimingEvent model *See Patrick Cassidy’s notes: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/health-ont/2005-02/msg00011.html

WordNet “Time” (Noun): 

WordNet 'Time' (Noun) S: (n) time, clip (an instance or single occasion for some event) 'this time he succeeded'; 'he called four times'; 'he could do ten at a clip' S: (n) time (an indefinite period (usually marked by specific attributes or activities)) 'he waited a long time'; 'the time of year for planting'; 'he was a great actor is his time' S: (n) time (a period of time considered as a resource under your control and sufficient to accomplish something) 'take time to smell the roses'; 'I didn't have time to finish'; 'it took more than half my time' S: (n) time (a suitable moment) 'it is time to go' S: (n) time (the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past) S: (n) clock time, time (the time as given by a clock) 'do you know what time it is?'; 'the time is 10 o'clock' S: (n) fourth dimension, time (the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event) S: (n) time (a person's experience on a particular occasion) 'he had a time holding back the tears'; 'they had a good time together' S: (n) meter, metre, time (rhythm as given by division into parts of equal duration) S: (n) prison term, sentence, time (the period of time a prisoner is imprisoned) 'he served a prison term of 15 months'; 'his sentence was 5 to 10 years'; 'he is doing time in the county jail' Ref. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/

SUMO – “time” search (on Protégé-SKIF): 

SUMO – 'time' search (on Protégé-SKIF)

SUMO – TimeMeasure 1 (on Protégé-SKIF): 

SUMO – TimeMeasure 1 (on Protégé-SKIF)

SUMO – TimeMeasure 2 (on Protégé-SKIF): 

SUMO – TimeMeasure 2 (on Protégé-SKIF)

SUMO – TimeMeasure (on SIGMA-kee): 

SUMO – TimeMeasure (on SIGMA-kee) Ref.: http://sigma2.cim3.net:8080/sigma/Browse.jsp?term=TimeMeasureandamp;kb=SUMO

Time Representation in HL7: 

Time Representation in HL7 The following was selected from the HL-7 taxonomy: DataTypeDataValue DataTypeInterval DataTypeIntervalOfPhysicalQuantities DataTypeIntervalOfPointsInTime DataTypeEventRelatedInterval DataTypeGeneralTimingSpecification DataTypePeriodicIntervalOfTime DataTypeQuantity DataTypePhysicalQuantity DataTypeParametricProbabilityDistributionOfPhysicalQuantities DataTypePointInTime

HL-7 Timing Event Model: 

HL-7 Timing Event Model

Reuse and Semantic Interoperability: 

Reuse and Semantic Interoperability Multiple working groups shouldn't have to redefine basic concepts Undermines semantic interoperability across domains and systems Varying quality of individual models Limits downstream extensibility Ontology-based formalizations offer more rigor Typically leverage work of broader community of interests Designed for reuse and extensibility Generally reflect more thorough, higher-quality modeling Reuse of Upper and Mid-level ontologies improves semantic alignment of Domain-Level ontologies and resulting implementations

Categories of Ontologies: 

Categories of Ontologies Diagram Source: Netcentric Semantic Linking (Mapping): An Approach for Enterprise Semantic Interoperability, Mary Pulvermacher, et. Al. MITRE, Feb. 22, 2005. SUMO DOLCE UpperCyc CCT-ONT HL7 RIM FEA-RMO SNOMED CT LOINC / EON UBL-ONT Examples:

The Bottom Line:: 

The Bottom Line: We should not be duplicating low level efforts Can’t do this alone … CoP + augmented task teams is probably our answer Need resources: skillset, funding … also organization (fishnet), discipline, governance Commitment by all participants Collaboration … and the real bottom line: … our own attitude toward sharing!