1 / 1

Upper Level Ontology

Onto1. Onto1 Onto2 Bridge. ⊑. ≡. Onto2.

sheena
Download Presentation

Upper Level Ontology

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Onto1 Onto1 Onto2 Bridge ⊑ ≡ Onto2 Mapping of BioTop to Upper OntologiesStefan Schulz1, Holger Stenzhorn1, Daniel Schober1, Martin Boeker1, Elena Beisswanger2, Udo Hahn21 Institute for Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany2 Jena University Language and Information Engineering (JULIE) Lab, Jena, Germany • UMLS SN • Alignment • Semantic Types issues: • ill-defined non-alignable categories(“conceptual entity”): represented by union, not mapped • non-rigid categories:(“pharmacologic substance”):mapped to biotop expressions with roles • very specific categories: required BioTop extensions (“age group”) • Semantic Relations issues: • most UMLS relations correspond to processes (classes) in BioTop • re-interpreted as associative statements with domain / range (agent / participant) role restrictions Bridgingmechanism • Background • Most current biomedical ontologies are characterized by • fragmentation and overlap • missing cross-ontology links • lack of clear and unambiguous formal definitions • purpose-specific architecture and design decisions BFO-RO Upper Level Ontology BFO-RO DOLCE UMLS-SN BioTop BFO-RO Bridge BioTop UMLS-SN Bridge BioTop DOLCE Bridge Domain Top Level Ontology BioTop • BioTop - Rationale • To consolidate and integrate domain ontologies bridging the gap to upper level ontologies • To enforce formal descriptions of basic entities in biology and medicine using description logics • To maintain neutrality with regard to granularity and observer-biased views BioTop GO Bridge BioTop CLBridge BioTop ChEBIBridge Domain Ontology GO CL ChEBI • BioTop - Characteristics • DL expressivity: SH • 339 classes • 60 relation types • 373 subclass axioms • 80 equivalent class axioms • 66 disjoint class axioms • Sources, publications, discussion lists: http://purl.org/biotop • DOLCE Lite • Alignment • issues: • qualities and quality region • roles and functions • masses / collections • DOLCE subdivisions of qualities and quality regions • DOLCE relations • Alignment and Mapping • Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) • OBO Relation Ontology (RO) • DOLCE Lite • UMLS Semantic Network • GENIA Ontology • Gene Ontology • Cell Ontology • Taxdemo: mapping of sample biological taxonomy • DebugIT Core Ontology (DCO) • BFO / RO Alignment • issues: • quality vs. quality region • state vs. quality • subdivisions of bfo:material_entity • subdivisions of bfo:processual_entity • biotop: immaterial nonphysical entities • counts vs. collections • lack of formal bfo definitions and linkage with RO • existing RO relations insufficient(no relation for inherence)

More Related