Not sure you can blame the US system. What you describe here sounds familiar in the European healthcare system too. To me, it seems that bowel issues are a complicated matter, with high variance in their manifestations. And as long as the symptoms are considered 'mild' (even with a significant decrease in quality of life), specialists don't seem to have an answer, and you'll end up in the 'deal with it' space.
working for a company, 100 % semantic web, integrating many, many parties for many years now, all of it rdf.
- you get used to turtle. one file can describe your db and be ingested as such. handy.
- interoperability is really possible. (distributed apps)
- hardest part is getting everyone to agree on the model, but often these discussions is more about resolving ambuigties surrounding the business than about translating it to model. (it gets things sharp)
- agree on a minimum model, open world means you can extend in your app
- don't overthink your owl descriptions
- no, please no reasoners. data is never perfect.
- tooling is there
- triple stores are not the fastest
pls, not another standard to fix the semantic web. Everything is there. More maturity in tooling might be welcome, but this a function of the number people using it.
All this sounds rather unsettelling. I am left with many questions. I'll reduce them to two:
1. are there people here who (especially medical field) do have the feeling the current system of research does its job (on average)?
2. Applied to very hot topic of vaccine safety assessment for the new covid vaccines, how sure can we be there is/will be enough room to critically assess this? (sorry i had ask, but just read https://www.wired.com/story/the-cdc-owes-parents-better-mess... so yea...)
