Advertisement

How to Represent Medical Ontologies in View of a Semantic Web?

  • Christine Golbreich
  • Olivier Dameron
  • Bernard Gibaud
  • Anita Burgun
Conference paper
  • 448 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2780)

Abstract

The biomedical community has concrete needs of a future Semantic Web. An important issue is to know whether the W3C languages, will meet its requirements. This paper aims at contributing to this question in evaluating two presently available languages, Protégé and DAML+OIL, on an actual ontology under development, the brain cortex ontology. It draws conclusions on their expressiveness, compares it to other ontology languages, in particular to the next standard OWL, and the hybrid language CARIN-\(\mathcal{ALN}\), and discusses the main features that should be in a Web language for medical ontologies in view of a Semantic Web.

Keywords

Description Logic Lateralized Concept Unify Medical Language System Direct Part Ontology Language 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bechhofer, S., Horrocks, I., Goble, C., Stevens, R.: OILEd: a Reason-able Ontology Editor for the Semantic Web. In: Baader, F., Brewka, G., Eiter, T. (eds.) KI 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2174, pp. 396–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bowden, D.M., Martin, R.F.: NeuroNames Brain Hierarchy. Neuroimage 2, 63–83 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinkley, J.F., Rosse, C.: Imaging informatics and the Human Brain Project: the role of structure. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 131–148 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dameron, O., Burgun, A., Morandi, X., Gibaud, B.: Modelling dependencies between relations to insure consistency of a cerebral cortex anatomy knowledge base. In: Proceedings of Medical Informatics in Europe (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Connolly, D., van Harmelen, F., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: DAML+OIL Reference Description. In: W3C Note, December 18 (2001), http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference
  6. 6.
    Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E. (eds.): Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0, 2nd edn (2000), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml
  7. 7.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: an electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fensel, D., van Harmelen, F., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: OIL An ontology infrastructure for the semantic web. IEEE Intell Systems 16(2), 38–45 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rector. A., Nowlan W.A., and the GALEN Consortium.: The GALEN Project Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 45, 75-78 (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomez-Perez, A., Corcho, O.: Ontology languages for the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 17(4), 54–60 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hendler, J., McGuinness, D.L.: The DARPA Agent Markup Language. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(6), 67–73 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levy, A.Y., Rousset, M.C.: The Limits on Combining Recursive Horn Rules with Description Logics. In: AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, Q., Shilane, P., Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Ontology acquisition from on-line knowledge sources. In: Proc. AMIA Symp., pp. 497–501 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lindberg, D.A., Humphreys, B.L., McCray, A.T.: The Unified Medical Language System. Meth. Inf. Med. Aug 32(4), 281–291 (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noy, N.F., Sintek, M., Decker, S., Crubezy, M., Fergerson, R.W., Musen, M.A.: Creating Semantic Web Contents with Protege-2000. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 60–71 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ono M., Kubik, S. and Abernathey, C.D.: Geog Thieme Verlag, Atlas of the Cerebral Sulci, Thieme Medical Publishers Inc (1990) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dean, M., Connolly, D., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference Version 1.0. In: W3C Working Draft, Mars 31 (2003), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  18. 18.
    Beckett, D. (ed.): RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised). W3C Working Draft January 23 (2003), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/
  19. 19.
    Rosse, C., Mejino, J.L., Modayur, B.R., Jakobovits, R., Hinshaw, K.P., Brinkley, J.F.: Motivation and organizational principles for anatomical knowledge representation: the digital anatomist symbolic knowledge base. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 5(1), 17–40 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rousset, M.-C., Bidault, A., Froidevaux, C., Gagliardi, H., Goasdoué, F., Reynaud, C., Safar, B.: Construction de médiateurs pour intégrer des sources d’information multiples et hétérogènes: le projet PICSEL. Revue I3: Information - Interaction - Intelligence (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sintek, M., Decker, S.: TRIPLE An RDF Query, Inference, and Transformation Language. In: DDLP 2001, Japan (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Toga, A.W.: Neuroimage databases: the good, the bad and the ugly. Nature reviews neuroscience 3, 302–309 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Biron, P.V., Malhotra, A. (eds.): Schema Part, X.M.L. 2: Datatypes. W3C Recommandation May 02 (2000), http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Golbreich
    • 1
  • Olivier Dameron
    • 2
  • Bernard Gibaud
    • 2
  • Anita Burgun
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculté de MédecineLaboratoire d’Informatique MédicaleRennesFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire IDM, UPRES-EA 3192Faculté de MédecineRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations