Advertisement

Strategic Health Information Management and Forecast: The Birdwatching Approach

  • Arash Shaban-Nejad
  • Volker Haarslev
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6423)

Abstract

To facilitate communication and the exchange of information between patients, nurses, lab technicians, health insurers, physicians, policy makers, and existing knowledge-based systems, a set of shared standard terminologies and controlled vocabularies are necessary. In modern health information management systems, these vocabularies are defined within formal representations called ontologies, where terminologies are only meaningful once linked to a descriptive dataset. When the datasets and their conveyed knowledge are changed, the ontological structure is altered accordingly. Despite the importance of this topic, the problem of managing evolving ontological structures is inadequately addressed by available tools and algorithms, partly because handling ontological change is not a purely computational affair. In this paper, we propose a framework inspired by a social activity, birdwatching. Using this model, the evolving ontological structures can be monitored and analyzed based on their state at a given time. Moreover, patterns of changes can be derived and used to predict and approximate a system’s behavior based on potential future changes.

Keywords

Change management Biomedical ontologies Multi-agent system Health information management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Verhagen, F.C.: Worldviews and Metaphors in the human-nature relationships: An Ecolinguistic Exploration Through the Ages. Language & Ecology 2(3) (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    eHealth: standardized terminology. Executive Board 118th Session, EB118, Provisional agenda 8.4. World Health Organization (May 25, 2006), http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB118/B118_8-en.pdf
  3. 3.
    Hedden, H.: Controlled Vocabularies, Thesauri, and Taxonomies. The Indexer 26(1), 33–34 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaban-Nejad, A., Haarslev, V.: Bio-medical Ontologies Maintenance and Change Management. In: Sidhu, A.S., Dillon, T.S. (eds.) Biomedical Data and Applications. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 224, pp. 143–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith, M.J., Dewar, R.G., Kowalczykiewicz, K., Weiss, D.: Towards Automated Change Propagation; the value of traceability. Technical Report, Heriot Watt University (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaban-Nejad, A., Haarslev, V.: Incremental biomedical ontology change management through learning agents. In: Nguyen, N.T., Jo, G.-S., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES-AMSTA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4953, pp. 526–535. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shaban-Nejad, A., Haarslev, V.: Human Factors in Dynamic E-Health Systems and Digital Libraries. In: Pease, W., Cooper, M., Gururajan, R. (eds.) Biomedical Knowledge Manage-ment: Infrastructures and Processes for E-Health Systems. Information Science Reference – ISR, pp. 192–203. IGI Global (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asperti, A., Longo, G.: Categories, types, and structures: an introduction to category theory for the working computer scientist. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. In: Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scribner, P.: Introduction to Ontological Philosophy (1999), http://www.twow.net/MclOtaI.htm
  12. 12.
    Holsti, K.J.: The Problem of Change in International Relations Theory. Paper No. 26 from CIR Working Paper Series (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilbert, M.C.: The Dialectics of Knowledge Management (2006), http://news.gilbert.org/DialecticsKM
  14. 14.
    Osborne, M.J.: Nash Equilibrium: Theory. In: An Introduction to Game Theory. Oxford University Press, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holt, C.A., Roth, A.E.: The Nash equilibrium: A perspective. PNAS 101(12), 3999–4002 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell, T.M.: The need for biases in learning generalizations. In: Shavlik, J.W., Dietterich, T.G. (eds.) Readings in Machine Learning, pp. 184–191. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chung, S., McLeod, D.: Dynamic Pattern Mining: An Incremental Data Clustering Approach. J. Data Semantics 2, 85–112 (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wong, W.K., Moore, A.W., Cooper, C.F., Wagner, M.: Bayesian Network Anomaly Pattern Detection for Disease Outbreaks. In: 20th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2003), pp. 808–815. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mays, E.: A Modal Temporal Logic for Reasoning about Change. In: 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Cambridge, MA, US, pp. 38–43 (1983)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heylighen, F.: Representation and Change. A Metarepresentational Framework for the Foundations of Physical and Cognitive Science. Communication & Cognition, Gent. 200 (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaban-Nejad, A., Ormandjieva, O., Kassab, M., Haarslev, V.: Managing Requirements Volatility in an Ontology-Driven Clinical LIMS Using Category Theory. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, Article ID 917826, 14 (2009) doi: 10.1155/2009/917826Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shaban-Nejad, A., Haarslev, V.: Ontology-inferred phylogeny reconstruction for analyzing the evolutionary relationships between species: Ontological inference versus cladistics. In: 8th IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE 2008), Athens, Greece, pp. 1–7. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang, J.: Computational Approaches to Linguistic consensus. Dissertation at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Galileo, G.: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican (1632), http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Extras/Galileo_Dialogue.html
  25. 25.
    Lawvere, F.W., Schanuel, S.H.: Conceptual Mathematics: A First Introduction to Categories, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009) (The 1st ed. published on 1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arash Shaban-Nejad
    • 1
  • Volker Haarslev
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Software EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations