The Theory of Top-Level Ontological Mappings and Its Application to Clinical Trial Protocols

  • Barbara Heller
  • Heinrich Herre
  • Kristin Lippoldt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3257)

Abstract

In the present paper we expound a methodology for the development of terminology systems and the construction of semantically founded knowledge systems. This method is based on ontological mappings using reference top-level ontologies, and is inspired by rigorous logico-philosophical principles. We outline a framework consisting of a system of formal tools designed to support the development of data dictionaries, taxonomies and knowledge systems. The core-module of this system named Onto-Builder is an internet-based software application for building context-sensitive data dictionaries. To ensure the broad acceptance of context-dependent descriptions within a diverse group of domain experts, a multistage quality assurance cycle has been established. Ontological mappings based on top-level ontologies are the foundation of a further module of the system, which assists the construction of knowledge systems out of terminology systems. The framework is intended to be applied to the medical domain, in particular to the field of clinical trials.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ICH. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) E6: International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (May 1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heller, B., Löffler, M., Musen, M., Stefanelli, M. (eds.): Computer-Based Support for Clinical Guidelines and Protocols. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heller, B., Lippoldt, K., Kuehn, K.: Onto-Builder - A Tool for Building Data Dictionaries. Onto-Med Report. Leipzig: Forschungsgruppe Ontologies in Medicine, Universität Leipzig, Report No. 3 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heller, B., Lippoldt, K., Kuehn, K.: Guideline for Creating Medical Terms. Onto-Med Report. Leipzig: Research Group Ontologies in Medicine, University of Leipzig, Report No. 4 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell, J.R., Carpenter, P., Sneiderman, C., Cohn, S., Chute, C.G., Warren, J.: Phase II evaluation of clinical coding schemes: completeness, taxonomy, mapping, definitions, and clarity. Journal of American Medical Association 4, 238–251 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cimino, J.J.: Desiderata for Controlled Medical Vocabularies in the Twenty-First Century. Methods of Information in Medicine 37(4-5), 394–403 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rector, A.L.: Clinical Terminology: Why Is it so Hard? Methods of Information in Medicine 38, 239–252 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Keizer, N.F., Abu-Hanna, A., Zwetsloot-Schonk, J.: Understanding terminological systems. I: Terminology and typology. Methods of Information in Medicine 39(1), 16–21 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Keizer, N.F., Abu-Hanna, A.: Understanding terminological systems. II: Experience with conceptual and formal representation of structure. Methods of Information in Medicine 39(1), 22–29 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    SNOMED. SNOMED® Clinical Terms Content Specification.: College of American Pathologists, Report No. DRAFT version 004 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    NLM. UMLS Knowledge Sources, 14th edn. National Library of Medicine (NLM) (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogers, J.E., Rector, A.L.: Extended Core model for representation of the Common Reference Model for procedures. OpenGALEN, Manchester (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heller, B., Herre, H.: Ontological Categories in GOL. Axiomathes 14(1), 57–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heller, B., Herre, H.: Formal Ontology and Principles of GOL. Onto-Med Report. Leipzig: Research Group Ontologies in Medicine, University of Leipzig, Report No. 1 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. DIN 2342 Teil 1: Begriffe der Terminologielehre. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. 10/1992 (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bouquet, P., Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F., Blanzieri, E.: Theories and uses of context in knowledge representation and reasoning. Journal of Pragmatics, 455–484 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Booch, G., Jacobson, I., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pfreundschuh, M.: Randomised Study Comparing 6 and 8 Cycles of Chemotherapy with CHOP at 14-day Intervals, both with or without the Monoclonal anti-CD20 Antibody Rituximab in Patients aged 61 to 80 Years with Aggressive Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. RICOVER-60: German High-grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Braunwald, E., Isselbacher, K.J., Petersdorf, R.G., Wilson, J.D., Martin, J.B., Fauci, A.S. (eds.): Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 11th edn. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The Very Large Databases Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heller, B., Herre, H., Loebe, F.: Ontological Reductions Based on Top-Level Ontologies (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1), 1–31 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klein, M.: Combining and relating ontologies: an analysis of problems and solutions. In: Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, IJCAI 2001, Seattle, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological Engineering: with examples from the areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Musen, M.A., Noy, N.F.: The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59(6), 983–1024 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stumme, G., Maedche, A.: FCA-MERGE: Bottom-Up Merging of Ontologies. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), Seattle, Washington, Aug 4-10 (2001), pp. 225–234. Morgan Kaufmann, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chalupsky, H.: OntoMorph: A Translation System for Symbolic Knowledge. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), pp. 471–482 (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McGuinness, D.L., Fikes, R., Rice, J., Wilder, S.: An Environment for Merging and Testing Large Ontologies. In: Cohn, A.G., Giunchiglia, F., Selman, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), Breckenridge, Colorado, April 11-15 (2000), pp. 483–493. Morgan Kaufmann, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Flouris, G., Plexousakis, D., Antoniou, G.: On a Unifying Framework for Comparing Knowledge Representation Schemes. In: Bry, F., Lutz, C., Sattler, U., Schoop, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases (KRDB 2003), Hamburg, September 15-16 (2003), Technical University of Aachen (RWTH), Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Language, Speech and Communication Series. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gangemi, A., Navigli, R., Velardi, P.: The OntoWordNet Project: extension and axiomatization of conceptual relations. In: WordNet, Catania, Italy, Nov 3-7 (2003), pp. 820–838 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Heller
    • 1
  • Heinrich Herre
    • 2
  • Kristin Lippoldt
    • 1
  1. 1.Onto-Med Research Group Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE)University of Leipzig GermanyLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Onto-Med Research Group Department of Formal Concepts Institute for Informatics (IfI)University of Leipzig GermanyLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations