Drug Interaction Ontology (DIO) and the Resource-Sensitive Logical Inferences

  • Mitsuhiro Okada
  • Yutaro Sugimoto
  • Sumi Yoshikawa
  • Akihiko Konagaya
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4060)


In this paper, we propose a formulation for inference rules in Drug Interaction Ontology (DIO). Our formulation for inference rules is viewed from the standpoint of process-description. The relations in DIO are now described as resource-sensitive linear logical implications. The compositional reasoning on certain drug-interactions discussed in our previous work on DIO is represented as a construction of a linear logical proof. As examples of our formulation, we use some anti-cancer drug interactions.


Inference Rule Description Logic Environmental Resource Linear Logic Logical Inference 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gene Ontology Consortium: Creating the Gene Ontology resource: design and implementation. Genome Res. 2001 11, 1425–1433 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gene Ontology Consortium: The Gene Ontology Editorial Style Guide,
  3. 3.
    Girard, J.Y.: Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1–102 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Girard, J.Y.: Linear Logic: its syntax and semantics. In: Girard, J.Y., Lafont, Y., Regnier, L. (eds.) Advances in Linear Logic. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goguen, J.: Data, Schema, Ontology, and Logic Integration. In: Carnielli, W., Dionisio, M., Mateus, P. (eds.) Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol. 13(6) (2006) (to appear)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goguen, J.: Information Integration in Institutions. In: Moss, L. (ed.) Jon Barwise memorial volume, Indiana University Press (2006) (to appear)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goguen, J.: Ontology, Society, and Ontotheology. In: Varzi, A., Vieu, L. (eds.) Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 95–103. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grenona, P., Smith, B.: SNAP and SPAN: Towards Dynamic Spatial Ontology. In: SPATIAL COGNITION AND COMPUTATION, vol(issue), start-end, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., MahwahGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hasebe, K., Jouannaud, J.P., Kremer, A., Okada, M., Zumkeller, R.: Formal Verification of Dynamic Real-Time State-Transition Systems Using Linear Logic. In: Proc. Software Science Conference, Nagoya, September 2003, 5 pages (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodas, J.S., Miller, D.: Logic Programming in a Fragment of Intuitionistic LinearLogic. Journal of Information and Computation 110(2), 327–365 (1994)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I.: Description logics in ontology applications. In: Beckert, B. (ed.) TABLEAUX 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3702, pp. 2–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Institute for Formal Ontology and Medical Information Science (IFOMIS),
  13. 13.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: WonderWeb Deliverable D18 - Ontology Library (final),
  14. 14.
    Mathijssen, R.H.J., van Alpen, R.J., Verweij, J., Walter, J.L., Nooter, K., Stoter, G., Sparreboom, A.: Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of Irinotecan (CPT- 11). Clinical Cancer Research 7, 2182–2194 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.J.: Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4, 463–502 (1969)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller, D.: A Survey of Linear Logic Programming. Computational Logic: The Newsletter of the European Network in Computational Logic 2(2), 63–67 (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OBO. Open Biomedical Ontologies,
  18. 18.
    Okada, M.: Linear Logic and Intuitionistic Logic. In: La revue internationale de philosophie, vol. 230, pp. 449–481 (2004) (special issue Intuitionism)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Okada, M.: An Introduction to Linear Logic: Phase Semantics and Expressiveness. In: Takahashi, M., Dezani, M., Okada, M. (eds.) Theories of Types and Proofs. Memoirs of Mathematical Society of Japan, vol. 2, pp. 255–295 (1998), second edition (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Okada, M.: Girard’s Linear Logic and Applications (in Japanese, partly in English). In: a JSSS Tutorial Lecture Note (41 pages), Software Science Society of Japan (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, B., et al.: Basic Formal Ontology,
  22. 22.
    Smith, B., Kumar, A.: On Controlled Vocabularies in Bioinformatics: A Case Study in the Gene Ontology. BIOSILICO: Drug Discovery Today 2, 246–252 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith, B., Ceusters, W., Klagges, B., Köhler, J., Kumar, A., Lomax, J., Mungall, C., Neuhaus, F., Rector, A.L., Rosse, C.: Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biology 6, R46 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith, B., Rosse, C.: The Role of Foundational Relations in the Alignment of Biomedical Ontologies. In: Fieschi, M., et al. (eds.) Medinfo 2004, pp. 444–448. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sattler, U.: Description Logics for Ontologies. In: Ganter, B., de Moor, A., Lex, W. (eds.) ICCS 2003. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 2746, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stevens, R., Wroe, C., Lord, P., Goble, C.: Ontologies in Bioinformatics. In: Handbook on Ontologies in Information Systems, pp. 635–657. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yoshikawa, S., Satou, K., Konagaya, A.: Drug Interaction Ontology (DIO) for Inferences of Possible Drug-drug Interactions. In: Fieschi, M., et al. (eds.) MEDINFO 2004, pp. 454–458. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoshikawa, S., Konagaya, A.: DIO: Drug Interaction Ontology - Application to Inferences in Possible Drug-drug Interactions. In: Proceedings of The, International Conference on Mathematics and Engineering Techniques in Medicine and Biological Sciences (METMBS 2003), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, June 23-26, pp. 231–236 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yoshikawa, S., Satou, K., Konagaya, A.: Application of Drug Interaction Ontology (DIO) for Possible Drug-drug Interactions. In: Proceedings of Chem-BioInformatics Society (2003), p. 320 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitsuhiro Okada
    • 1
  • Yutaro Sugimoto
    • 1
  • Sumi Yoshikawa
    • 2
  • Akihiko Konagaya
    • 2
  1. 1.Logic Group, Department of PhilosophyKeio UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Genomic Science Center (GSC)RIKENYokohama City, KanagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations