To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To explore the mental health tribunal experiences of people admitted involuntarily under the Mental Health Act 2001.
Employing a qualitative descriptive study design, data were collected from 23 service users who had experienced mental health tribunals during a recent involuntary admission. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted ~3 months post-revocation of their involuntary admission order. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic process.
The majority of participants reported mixed experiences comprising positive and negative aspects in relation to information provision, emotional support and an inclusive atmosphere. Some participants reported receiving accessible information about the tribunal process, felt emotionally supported throughout, and encountered respectful and dignifying practices during the tribunal proceedings. However, many participants described experiencing non-inclusive practices, reported feeling ill-informed regarding the tribunal process, emotionally unsupported during and after the tribunal, and distressed by what they perceived as adversarial tribunal proceedings.
Systemic changes could ensure that the positive experiences encountered by the minority of participants in this study are more consistently experienced. Ongoing education and training of stakeholders in the provision of inclusive tribunal practices, and the provision of accessible information and emotional support to service users through the stages of the involuntary admission process appear likely to be beneficial. Service users should automatically be offered the option of having a support person of their choosing present during tribunals.
To evaluate and compare the opinions of key stakeholders involved in the involuntary admission and treatment of patients under the Mental Health Act (MHA) 2001 regarding their views towards the operation of the legislation.
We employed a descriptive survey design. A questionnaire was distributed to stakeholders involved in the operation of the MHA 2001 (except service users, whose views were explored in a separate qualitative study) via paper or online versions evaluating their opinions regarding the operation of the MHA 2001 in relation to assessment, care, rights, transfer and information available.
Stakeholders agreed that in their opinion that patients generally benefit from the care they receive (79%) and that the MHA 2001 ensures an independent and fair review of the person’s detention (65%). However, only 23% of stakeholders were satisfied with the process of transferring patients to hospital and with the clinical assessment procedures therein (37%), with the greatest levels of dissatisfaction amongst Gardai (Police), general practitioners (GPs) and family members.
While the introduction of the MHA 2001 has assisted delivery of care to patients with improved adherence to international human rights frameworks applicable at the time of its enactment, substantial dissatisfaction with the implementation of the MHA 2001 in practice is experienced by stakeholders particularly at the distressing phase of clinical assessment and transfer to hospital.
It has long been realized that the web could benefit from having its content understandable and available in a machine processable form. The Semantic Web aims to achieve this via annotations that use terms defined in ontologies to give well defined meaning to web accessible information and services. OWL, the ontology language recommended by the W3C for this purpose, was heavily influenced by Description Logic research. In this chapter we review briefly some early efforts that combine Description Logics and the web, including predecessors of OWL such as OIL and DAML+OIL. We then go on to describe OWL in some detail, including the various influences on its design, its relationship with RDFS, its syntax and semantics, and a range of tools and applications.
Background and history
The World Wide Web, while wildly successful in growth, may be viewed as being limited by its reliance on languages such as HTML that are focused on presentation (i.e., text formatting) rather than content. Languages such as XML do add some support for capturing the meaning of web content (instead of simply how to render it in a browser), but more is needed in order to support intelligent applications that can better exploit the ever increasing range of information and services accessible via the web. Such applications are urgently needed in order to avoid overwhelming users with the sheer volume of information becoming available.
Description Logics are used to solve a wide variety of problems, with configuration applications being some of the largest and longest-lived. There is concrete, commercial evidence that shows that DL-based configurators have been successfully fielded for over a decade. Additionally, it appears that configuration applications have a number of characteristics that make them well-suited to DL-based solutions. This chapter will introduce the problem of configuration, describe some requirements of configuration applications that make them candidates for DL-based solutions, show examples of these requirements in a configuration example, and introduce the largest and longest-lived family of DL-based configurators.
In order to solve a configuration problem, a configurator (human or machine) must find a set of components that fit together to solve the problem specification. Typically, that means the answer will be a parts list that contains a set of components that work together and that the system comprising the components meets the specification. This task can be relatively simple, such as choosing stereo components in order to create a home stereo system. The problem can also be extremely complex, such as choosing the thousands of components that must work together in order to build complicated telecommunications equipment such as cross-connect devices or switches.
One important factor that makes configuration challenging is that making a choice for one component typically generates constraints on other components as well. For example, a customer who chooses a receiver that only supports up to four speakers may not conveniently support a surround sound system with a subwoofer (since this would require more than four speakers).
A DL-based knowledge representation system is more than an inference engine for a particular Description Logic. A knowledge representation system must provide a number of services to human users, including presentation of the information stored in the system in a manner palatable to users and justification of the inferences performed by the system. If human users cannot understand what the system is doing, then the development of knowledge bases is made much more difficult or even impossible. A knowledge representation system must also provide a number of services to application programs, including access to the basic information stored in the system but also including access to the machinations of the system. If programs cannot easily access and manipulate the information stored in the system, then the development of applications is made much more difficult or even impossible.
A DL-based knowledge representation system does not live in a vacuum. It has to be prepared to interact with several sorts of other entities. One class of entities consists of human users who develop knowledge bases using the system. If the system cannot effectively interact with these users then it will be difficult to create knowledge bases in the system, and the system will not be used. Another class of entities consists of programs that use the services of the system to provide information to support applications. If the system cannot effectively interact with these programs then it will be difficult to create applications using the system, and the system will not be used.