Semantic Web pp 121-137 | Cite as

Ontology Engineering for Biological Applications

  • Larisa N. Soldatova
  • Ross D. King


Ontology engineering is one of the basic components of Semantic Web technology, Ontology engineering provides semantic clarity, explicitness, and facilitates the reusability of represented information and knowledge. We explain the major components of typical ontologies, and the principles behind and different approaches to ontology design. We also discuss the common problems encountered by ontology developers. As a demonstrative example we analyze the MGED (Microarray Gene Expression Data) ontology for describing microarray experiments. The MGED Ontology (MO) is a pioneering attempt to formalize the description of microarray experiments in biology. It has had a significant practical impact on the organization and execution of microarray experiments, as well as on the storage and sharing of microarray experiment results. However, analysis of MO reveals design problems that are common for other ontologies in biology. A generic ontology of experiments as a possible solution is discussed.

Key words

ontology ontology evaluation annotation experiment AI biosciences 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Fielding J.M., Simon J., Ceusters W., and Smith B. Ontological Theory for Ontological Engineering: Biomedical Systems Information Integration. In Proc. The principles of knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Gkoutos G.V., Green E.C., Mallon A.M., Hancock J.M., and Davidson, D. Using ontologies to describe mouse phenotypes, Genome Biol. 6(1): R8, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Hill D.P., Blake J.A., Richardson J.E., and Ringwald M. Extension and Integration of the gene ontology (GO): combining GO vocabularies with external vocabularies. Genome Res. 12(12): 1982–91, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hobbs J.R. and Feng P. An Ontology of Time for the Semantic Web. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Processing (TALIP): Special issue on Temporal Information Processing, 3/1: 66–85, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Kozaki K., Kitamura Y., Ikeda M. and Mizoguchi R. Hozo: An Environment for Building/Using Ontologies Based on a Fundamental Consideration of “Role” and “Relationship”. Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, 213–218, 2002.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Mizoguchi R. Tutorial on ontological engineering-Part 2: Ontology development, tools and languages. New Generation Computing, OhmSha&Springer, 22/1: 61–96, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Mizoguchi R. Tutorial on ontological engineering-Part 3: Advanced course of ontological engineering. New Generation Computing, OhmSha&Springer, 22/2: 193–220, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Musen M.A. Domain ontologies in software engineering: Use of Protege with the EON architecture. Methods Inf. Med. 37: 540–550, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Rosse C., Mejino J.. A reference ontology for biological informatics: the Foundational Model of Anatomy. Biomedical Informatics, 36: 478–500, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Schulze-Kremer S., 1997, Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Mol. Biol. 5: 272–275, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Schulze-Kremer S. Ontologies for Molecular Biology. Computer and Information Sci. 6(21), 2001.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Smith B. The Logic of Biological Classification and the Foundations of Biomedical Ontology. Dag Westerståhl (ed.), (Invited paper). In: Proc. 10th International Conference in Logic Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Spain, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Soldatova L.N. and King R.D. Are the Current Ontologies used in Biology Good Ontologies? Nature Biotechnology 9/23: 1096–1098, 2005Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Soldatova L.N. and King R.D. An Ontology of Scientific Experiments. Journal of the Royal Society Interface (in press), 2006.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Sunagawa E., Kozaki K., Kitamura Y., and Mizoguchi R. A Framework for Organizing Role Concepts in Ontology Development Tool: Hozo. AAAI Symposium Roles, an Interdisciplinary Perspective: Ontologies, Programming Languages, and Multiagent Systems, USA, FS-05-08, 136–143, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    The Collins Softback English Dictionary. HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2 Ed., 1989.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Varzi A. Spatial Reasoning and Ontology: Parts, Wholes, and Locations, Chapter 3 in M. Aiello, I. Pratt-Hartmann, and J. van Benthem (eds.), The Logic of Space, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    BFO, (May, 2006); Scholar
  20. [20]
    Bibliographic Data Ontology, (July, 2006); Scholar
  21. [21]
    DOLCE, (July, 2006); Scholar
  22. [22]
    FuGO, (June, 2006) Scholar
  23. [23]
    MO, (May, 2006); Scholar
  24. [24]
    OBO, (May, 2006); Scholar
  25. [25]
    OpenCYC, (May, 2006); Scholar
  26. [26]
    SUMO, (May, 2006); Scholar
  27. [27]
    WordNet, (May, 2006); Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larisa N. Soldatova
    • 1
  • Ross D. King
    • 1
  1. 1.The Computer Science DepartmentThe University of WalesAberystwythUK

Personalised recommendations