Advertisement

Integrating Healthcare Ontologies: Inconsistency Tolerance and Case Study

  • Fahim Imam
  • Wendy MacCaull
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 17)

Abstract

A major challenge for ontology integration is to effectively deal with inconsistencies that arise during the merging process. Because of the explosive nature of classical logic, the common strategy in existing merging tools is to choose between the contradictory pieces of information and maintain consistency. In many cases inconsistent information may be useful for intelligent reasoning activities. For example, in healthcare systems inconsistent information may be required to provide a full clinical perspective so any information loss is undesirable. In this paper we present a multi-valued logic based merging system that has inconsistency tolerant behavior and avoids information loss. As an application of the system in the healthcare domain, a result of merging a subset of two healthcare ontologies SNOMED CT and ICNP is presented.

Keywords

Ontology integration paraconsistency multi-valued logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gruber, T.: An ontology for engineering mathematics. In: Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Germany, pp. 258–269 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Imam, F.T., MacCaull, W., Kennedy, M.A.: Merging Healthcare Ontologies: Inconsistency Tolerance and Implementation Issues. In: Proc. of 20th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS 2007), pp. 530–535. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    William, G.: Cross-Mapping Between Three Terminologies With the International Standard Nursing Reference Terminology Model. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T.: Introduction to inconsistency tolerance. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunter, A.: Paraconsistent Logics, Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Su, X., Ilebrekke, L.: A comparative study of ontology languages and tools. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, p. 761. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Bruijn, J., Martin-Recuerda, F., Manov, D., Ehrig, M.: State-of-the-art survey on Ontology Merging and Aligning, a Report of SEKT: Semantically Enabled Knowledge Technologies (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, Z., van Harmelen, F., Teije, A.T., Groot, P., Visser, C.: Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies: A General Framework, EU-IST Integrated Project (IP) IST-2003-506826 SEKT (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schlobach, S., Cornet, R.: Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In: Proceedings of the 18th IJCAI, Mexico (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Priest, G., Koji, T.: Paraconsistent Logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2004), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., McGuinness, D.L., Welty, C.A.: OWL: A description logic based ontology language. In: Gabbrielli, M., Gupta, G. (eds.) ICLP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3668, pp. 1–4. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L.: OWL web ontology language guide, W3C Recommendation (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Racer: A Semantic Middleware for Industrial Projects Based on RDF/OWL, A W3C Standard, http://www.racer-systems.com/about/about.phtml
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    The Protégé Ontology Editor and Knowledge Acquisition System, http://protege.stanford.edu/
  16. 16.
    Ma, Y., Lin, Z., Hitzler, P.: Paraconsistent Reasoning with OWL - Algorithms and the ParOWL Reasoner, Technical Report, AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Imam, F.T.: An Inconsistancy Tolerant Approach to Ontology Merging, M.Sc Thesis, St. Francis Xavier University, Library and Archives Canada, Canada (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fahim Imam
    • 1
  • Wendy MacCaull
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Information, Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer ScienceSt. Francis Xavier UniversityNova ScotiaCanada

Personalised recommendations