MedInfo 2007 Workshop: MedSemWeb 2007
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 11

How much formality do we need ? PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 53 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

MedInfo 2007 Workshop: MedSemWeb 2007 What Semantics Do We Need for A Semantic Web for Medicine?. How much formality do we need ?. Stefan Schulz. University Medical Center Freiburg, Medical Informatics, Freiburg, Germany. Example. Using Semantic Web standards (OWL-DL)

Download Presentation

How much formality do we need ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


How much formality do we need

MedInfo 2007 Workshop: MedSemWeb 2007

What Semantics Do We Need for A Semantic Web for Medicine?

How much formality do we need ?

Stefan Schulz

University Medical Center Freiburg, Medical Informatics, Freiburg, Germany


Example

Example

  • Using Semantic Web standards (OWL-DL)

  • Using Biomedical Ontology standards (OBO)

  • Terminological Inference


Classes

Classes

  • Amino Acid

  • Protein

  • Aminoaciduria

  • Proteinuria


How much formality do we need

Relations (OBO RO)

  • hasPart / partOf(parthood in a broad sense):relates continuants

  • hasLocation / locationOfrelates continuants or occurrents with continuants

  • transitive, reflexive, antisymmetric


How much formality do we need

Description Logic

  • Subsumption ⊑

  • Equivalence ≡

  • Existential quantification 

  • Conjunction ⊓

  • transitive roles


How much formality do we need

Axioms

  • Protein⊑hasPart.AminoAcid

  • Aminoaciduria≡Disorder ⊓

  • hasLocation.(Body ⊓

  • hasPart.(PortionOfUrine ⊓

  • hasPart.AminoAcid))

  • Proteinuria≡Disorder ⊓

  • hasLocation.(Body ⊓

  • hasPart.(PortionOfUrine ⊓

  • hasPart.Protein))


How much formality do we need

false!

Inference

Proteinuria⊑Aminoaciduria

(since Proteins have Amino Acids as parts, and partOf is transitive)

  • Is this error due to formal underspecification ?

  • Is hasPart not always transitive?


Formal correctness but ontological sloppyness

Formal correctnessbut ontological sloppyness

AminoAcid: hidden ambiguity:

  • AminoAcidSingleMolecule

  • AminoAcidResidue

  • AminoAcidSingleMoleculeCollection

    • AminoAcidSingleMoleculeCollectionLowConc

    • AminoAcidSingleMoleculeCollectionHighConc


How much formality do we need

Corrected Axioms

  • Aminoaciduria≡Disorder ⊓

  • hasLocation.(Body ⊓

  • hasPart.(PortionOfUrine ⊓

  • hasPart.AminoAcidSingleMoleculeCollectionHighConc))

  • Proteinuria≡Disorder ⊓

  • hasLocation.(Body ⊓

  • hasPart.(PortionOfUrine ⊓

  • hasPart.ProteinMoleculeCollectionHighConc))


How much formality do we need

Formal Correctness

assures consistency

Ontological Correctness

assures adequacy

Two sides of the same coin


Conclusion

Conclusion

  • Even little formality must be rooted in a correct ontological foundation to prevent unintended models with inadequate inferences

  • If we do not know exactly what we are formalizing we cannot rely on machine reasoning. In this case we should give preference to informal, thesaurus-like knowledge representations


  • Login