Descriptive Metadata: Implementing Large-Scale Biomedical Ontologies

  • Prakash M. Nadkarni
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


In the previous chapter, I’ve introduced the term “ontology”, as the most evolved form of terminology. I’ve stated that no existing terminology meets every aspect of the definition, though some come closer to it than others. SNOMED CT, UMLS and LOINC meet the requirement that every concept be placed in at least one category. WordNet,1 a widely used thesaurus of English that has also been explored to improve the quality of biomedical thesauri,2,3 has some aspects of an ontology: its authors, however, cognizant of the hype surrounding this term, modestly disavow such claims.


Description Logic Relationship Type Previous Chapter Local Content Audit Trail 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1.  1.
    Miller GA, Fellbaum C, Tengi R, Langone H, Ernst A, Jose L. Wordnet: a lexical database for English. cited 4/1/2011,
  2.  2.
    Mougin F, Burgun A, Bodenreider O. Using WordNet to improve the mapping of data elements to UMLS for data sources integration. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;2006:574-578.Google Scholar
  3.  3.
    Bodenreider O, Burgun A, Mitchell JA. Evaluation of WordNet as a source of lay knowledge for molecular biology and genetic diseases: a feasibility study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2003;95:379-384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4.  4.
    Minsky M. Frames: a general representation of knowledge (MIT AI Lab Memo 306). 1974 [cited 6/1/09]; Available from:
  5.  5.
    Minsky M. A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston PH, ed. The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1975.Google Scholar
  6.  6.
    Noy NF, Klein M. Ontology evolution: not the same as schema evolution. Knowl Inf Syst. 2004;6:428-440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7.  7.
    Gruber T. Ontology. Encyclopedia of Database Systems. Berlin: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
  8.  8.
    Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. Protege Home Page. 2010 [cited 12/1/10]; Available from:
  9.  9.
    Wikipedia. Potter Stewart. 2010 [cited 4/10/10]; Available from:
  10. 10.
    English L. Improving Data Warehouse and Business Information Quality: Methods for reducing costs and increasing profits. New York: Wiley; 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conniff R. What’s Behind a Smile. Smithsonian Magazine; 2007: p. 51-52.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noy NF, Crubezy M, Fergerson RW, et al. Protege-2000: an open-source ontology-development and knowledge-acquisition environment. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;2003:953.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. Protege: JDBC Back-end design rationale. 2005 [cited 6/4/09]; Available from:
  14. 14.
    Zhou M, Geng G, Huang S. Ontology development for insect morphology and taxonomy system. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology; 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reiter R. On closed world data bases. In: Gallaire H, Minker J, eds. Logic and Data Bases. New York: Plenum; 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Wide Web Consortium. OWL web ontology language: overview. 2004 [cited 9/1/05]; Available from:
  17. 17.
    IBM Corporation. IBM integrated ontology development toolkit. 2004 [cited 3/2/09]; Available from:
  18. 18.
    Wikipedia. XML databases. 2009 [cited 9/1/09]; Available from: The URL is:
  19. 19.
    World Wide Web Consortium. SWRL – A semantic web rules language combining OWL and RuleML. 2009 [cited Aug 1, 2009]; Available from:
  20. 20.
    Das A, O’Connor M. SWRLTab. 2009 [cited Aug 16, 2009]; Available from:
  21. 21.
    World Wide Web Consortium. OWL 2 web ontology language document overview. 2009 [cited; Available from:
  22. 22.
    Cregan A, Mochol M, Vrandecic D, Bechhofer S. Pushing the limits of OWL, Rules and Protege: A simple example. 2005 [cited; Available from:
  23. 23.
    Rettig T. Tom Rettig’s Foxpro Handbook. New York: Random House; 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harman D. How effective is suffixing? J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1991;42(1):7-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Divita G, Browne AC, Rindflesch TC. Evaluating lexical variant generation to improve information retrieval. Proc AMIA Annu Symp. 1998;1998:775-779.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sparck Jones K. A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. J Doc. 1972;28(1):11-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC). 2009 [cited 9/1/09]; Available from:
  28. 28.
    Nadkarni PM, Marenco LA. Implementing description-logic rules for SNOMED-CT attributes through a table-driven approach. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;17(2):182-184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    International Health Terminology Standards Development Organization. SNOMED CT machine-readable concept model. 2010 [cited 3/1/10]; Available from: (this URL requires IHTSDO membership to access; membership, however is freely granted).
  30. 30.
    Ceusters WM, Spackman KA, Smith B. Would SNOMED CT benefit from realism-based ontology evolution? AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007;2007:105-109.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wade G, Rosenbloom S. The impact of SNOMED CT revisions on a mapped interface terminology: terminology development and implementation issues. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:490-493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prakash M. Nadkarni
    • 1
  1. 1.School of MedicineYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations