Electronic Business: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (4-Volumes) P239 ppt

In ontology design, the semantics of each concept in the ontology should be clear without any ambiguities because the concepts are shared by the Semantic Web or e-business applications f

IUDPH ZH VHOHFW WKH ³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´ DQG

LQWKH³&KLOGRUJUDQGFKLOG2QWRORJLHV´IUDPH

ZHLQSXWWKHRQWRORJ\QDPH³6WXGHQW´DQGWKH

QDPHVSDFH ³VWX´ IRU WKLV 6WXGHQWB2QWRORJ\

:KHQFOLFNLQJWKH³,QKHULWDQFH´EXWWRQDVLPSOH

Student_Ontology is automatically created which

ZLOOEHVKRZQLQWKHULJKW³&RGHV´IUDPH,QDG-GLWLRQDVZHVHOHFWWKH³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´LQWKH

³3DUHQW 2QWRORJLHV´ IUDPH DOO WKH FRQFHSWV RI

³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´ZLOOEHOLVWHGLQWKH³6HOHFW

&RQFHSWV´ FRPER LQ WKH ³3DUHQW 2QWRORJLHV´

IUDPH VRPH FRQFHSWV RI ³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´

DUHGH¿QHGLQ)LJXUHWKHQZHFDQVHOHFWRQH

FRQFHSWDQGE\FOLFNLQJWKH³%ORFN´EXWWRQD

certain concept of the parent ontology is blocked

in the child ontology Also, after selecting a

con-cept from the parent ontology and clicking the

³0XWDWLRQ´EXWWRQZHFDQLQGLFDWHWKDWFHUWDLQ

concept of the parent ontology is mutated in the

FKLOGRQWRORJ\)URPWKHULJKW³&RGHV´IUDPHRI

)LJXUHZHFDQVHHWKDW³RI¿FHBSKRQH´LVEORFNHG

E\6WXGHQWB2QWRORJ\DQG³FRQWDFWBQR´LVPXWDWHG

LQ6WXGHQWB2QWRORJ\,IZHFOLFNWKH³6DYH´EXW-ton, the new Student_Ontology will be saved in

D¿OHEXWLIWKHUHDUHSUREOHPVZHFDQUROOEDFN

10 steps When a new ontology is created, it will EHDXWRPDWLFDOO\OLVWHGLQWKH³6HOHFW2QWRORJLHV´ FRPERVRI³*UDQGSDUHQW2QWRORJLHV´DQG³3DUHQW Ontologies” frames Similarly, we can use the atavism operation to indicate that some concepts

of the grandparent ontology are atavismed in the grandchild ontology or in the offspring ontolo-gies of the grandchild ontoloontolo-gies Note that the

³JPRH´LQ)LJXUHLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHRSHUDWLRQV LQWKH³2QWRORJ\/DQJXDJH2UJDQL]DWLRQ´VHFWLRQ are a genetic model

This tool is a prototype to indicate that the inheritance, block, atavism, and mutation opera-tions really work in organize ontology language and ontologies This prototype tool can be further improved for commercial use

Next we summarize the guidelines of how

to organize information in ontologies, that is, different information should be put at different hierarchies of ontologies

The general concepts in a domain should be put in the highest level ontologies, for example, O1 in Figure 8 Here O represents Ontologies If VRPHFRQFHSWVDUHVSHFL¿FWKH\VKRXOGEHSXWLQ the lower level ontologies, for example, O2 and

Figure 7 A graphical tool for ontology language and ontology organization

O3 in Figure 8 When some concepts are more

VSHFL¿FWKH\VKRXOGEHSXWLQHYHQORZHURQWROR-gies, for example, O4-O9 in Figure 8 Figure 8

shows the hierarchy of ontologies We allow

multiple inheritance in ontology organizations, for

example, O6 inherits both O2 and O3 In practice,

the hierarchies can be more than three levels

The hierarchy of ontologies is similar to

the hierarchy of ontology languages However,

because the concepts in ontologies will change

(add in, move out, and update), next we mainly

GLVFXVVKRZWRUHVROYHWKHFRQÀLFWVLQRQWRORJ\

organizations

5HVROYH&RQÀLFWVLQOntology

Organization

Kalfoglou and Schorlemmer (2003) survey the

related works on ontology mapping and indicate

WKDWPRVWRIWKHSUHYLRXVZRUNVDUHDERXW¿QGLQJ

the similarities and differences among

ontolo-gies, then the ontologies can be accessed from

a common layer There are no related works on

UHVROYLQJWKHFRQÀLFWVLQGHVLJQRQWRORJLHV+HUH

ZHGLVFXVVVRPHWHFKQLTXHVWRUHVROYHFRQÀLFWV

in designing ontologies with hierarchies

When designing ontologies with hierarchies,

it is important to keep the ontologies consistent

$ FRQFHSW LV VSHFL¿HG LQ DQ RQWRORJ\ LI LW LV HLWKHU GH¿QHG RU UHGH¿QHG IRU WKH RQWRORJ\ $ UHGH¿QHG FRQFHSW RYHUORDGV D VLPLODU FRQFHSW

in some ancestor ontologies Figure 9 shows the hierarchies of ontologies The O in Figure

9 represents ontologies which are displayed as rounded rectangles, and the C in Figure 9 rep-UHVHQWVFRQFHSWVGH¿QHGLQRQWRORJLHVZKLFKDUH displayed as parallelograms

In this section, we discuss how to resolve the FRQÀLFWV$QLQKHULWHGFRQFHSWLVZHOOGH¿QHGLI LWLVVSHFL¿HGLQRQHDQGRQO\RQHDQFHVWRURQWRO-RJ\SRVVLEO\LQGLUHFW$FRQÀLFWVLWXDWLRQH[LVWV ZKHQ DQ LQKHULWHG FRQFHSW LV QRW ZHOO GH¿QHG that is, two or more ancestor ontologies specify the same concept For example, from Figure

9, we can see that concept C1 of ontology O2 LV UHGH¿QHG LQ RQWRORJLHV 2 2 DQG 2 & FRQWULEXWHVWRDFRQÀLFWVLWXDWLRQLQ2EXW& LVZHOOGH¿QHGLQ2

We have the following methods to solve the FRQÀLFWSUREOHP

 5HGH¿QLQJRURYHUULGLQJ

Figure 8 Architecture of building ontology systems

O1

O2

O4

O3

…

…

The C2 in O9 and O2 in Figure 9 have the

VDPHQDPHWKXVLWPD\EHDFRQÀLFW+RZHYHU

LI&LQ2LVGH¿QHGWRRYHUULGHWKH&LQ2

DQGUHGH¿QHG&ZLWKGLIIHUHQWPHDQLQJWKHQ

WKHUHDUHQRFRQÀLFWV

2 Explicitly selecting or renaming

We use an example to show how to use

explic-LWO\VHOHFWLQJRUUHQDPLQJWRVROYHFRQÀLFWV

Example 9 If the two C4 in O3 and O1 of

Figure 9 have the different semantics, there will

EHDFRQÀLFWLQ27RVROYHWKLVFRQÀLFWZHKDYH

WZR RSWLRQV 7KH ¿UVW RSWLRQ KDV WKH RQWRORJ\

designer explicitly mention that the C4 in O9 is

inherited from the C4 in O3 However, explicitly

selecting has a problem, that is, some

informa-tion will be lost If O9 explicitly meninforma-tions that

O9 uses the C4 in O3, the information of the C4

in O1 can not be inherited by O9, which is a loss

of information The second option to process this

FRQÀLFWLVUHQDPHWKH&LQHLWKHU2RU2RU

both; in this way, all the information can be kept

without lost

3 Redesigning the organizations of ontologies (e.g factoring)

We use the ontology hierarchies shown in )LJXUH  WR LQWURGXFH WKLV FRQÀLFW UHVROYLQJ approach The two Cs in ontologies O2 and O3 have the same semantics, and they have the same name Obviously, there will be confusion when O4 inherits C from O2 and O3 In ontology design, the semantics of each concept in the ontology should be clear without any ambiguities because the concepts are shared by the Semantic Web or e-business applications for semantic information processing

7RSURFHVVWKLVFRQÀLFWWKHUHDUHWZRFDVHV

to consider

1 If O1= O2 ‰ O3, Figure 11 shows that we can factor C to the parent ontology of Q2 and O3, that is, O1 In this way, O4 inherits concept C from a single ancestor ontology, WKHUHIRUHWKHUHDUHQRFRQÀLFWV

2 If O1 Š O2 ‰ O3, then we create ontology O5 such that O5 = O2 ‰ O3, and factor C to

)LJXUH&RQÀLFWVLQRQWRORJ\GHVLJQ

O9

O3

C1

C1

C1 C3

C2

C4

O2

O1

O4 C4

O5 Figure 12 shows this approach In this

ZD\WKHFRQÀLFWFDQEHUHVROYHGDQGWKH&

is at an appropriate level

$OJRULWKPWR5HVROYH&RQÀLFWV

)LJXUHVKRZVWKHDOJRULWKPWRUHVROYHFRQÀLFWV

which is a formal summary of the cases in the

³5HVROYH &RQÀLFWV LQ 2QWRORJ\ 2UJDQL]DWLRQ´

section

:LWK WKHVH FRQÀLFW SURFHVVLQJ DSSURDFKHV

when inserting concepts into or deleting concepts

from ontologies, we should be careful to make WKHRQWRORJLHVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKRXWFRQÀLFWV/LQJ

& Teo, 1993)

SEMANTIC INFORMATION PROCESSING IN THE SEMANTIC WEB AND E-BUSINESS

The present Web exists in the HTML and XML formats for persons to browse Recently there

is a trend towards the Semantic Web where the

Figure 11 Factor to parent ontology

O1 C1

O4

)LJXUH5HVROYHFRQÀLFWVE\UHGHVLJQLQJWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQVRIRQWRORJLHV

O1

C

O4

C

Figure 12 Factor to an intermediate level of ontology

O5 C1

O1

O4

information can be processed and understood by

a computer The present e-business also requires

that the semantic information can be

automati-cally exchanged among different agents of the

e-business partners

When the concepts in different ontologies are

GH¿QHGZLWKclear semantics and ZLWKRXWFRQÀLFWV,

the sharing concepts in ontologies can be used to

annotate the Semantic Web pages or the agents of

the e-business partners If the information in two

different Semantic Web pages refers to the same concept from the same ontology, the information has the same semantics, otherwise the information

is different in the two Semantic Web pages This can be automatically recognized by the computer

It is similar for the semantic information process-ing in e-business

We use an example to show how to achieve the automatically and semantically exchange of information

)LJXUH$OJRULWKPWRUHVROYHFRQÀLFWV

Given ontologies with hierarchies

FOR each conflict situation in the hierarchy DO

Let the conflict situation be ontologies A, B1, …, Bn (n > 1) where B1, …, Bn are

the nearest ancestor ontologies of A that specify a property p

/* Note that a ancestor ontology of some Bi may itself specify a property p */

/* Check the semantics of p in B1, …, Bn */

IF semantics of p is the same in B1, …, Bn THEN

IF intersection of B1, …, Bn is empty THEN

***Design error, since ontology A (which is the intersection of B1, …, Bn) is empty

ELSE

******/* same semantics (Factoring) */

IF there exists a more general ontology K which is UNION of B1, …, Bn THEN

Factor p to ontology K

ELSE

Resolve the conflict by either:

(a) creating a general ontology K that is the UNION of B1, …, Bn and factoring p to K

OR

(b) Explicitly choosing one parent ontology to inherit the property.

ENDIF

ENDIF

ELSE

/* different semantics */

Let G1, G2, …, Gm be sets of mutually exclusive ontologies from B1, …, Bn such

that ontologies in a group share the same semantics for p Resolve the conflict in A

by adopting one of the following:

(a) redefine p in ontology A, /* not a good solution */ or

(b) Rename p in Gj to, say, p_Gj for j = 1, …, m to reflect their different semantics

To conform to the unique name assumption Each p in the schema that has the

same semantics as P_Gj must be renamed to p_Gj.

FOR each group Gj (j = 1, …, m) with 2 or more ontolgoies having property

p_Gj DO

/* An conflict situation exists between ontology A and the ontologies in Gj;*/

/* p_Gj has the same semantics in the ontologies of Gj */

Resolve the conflict in ontology A using the method described in *** and

******

ENDFOR

ENDIF

ENDFOR

Example 10 Figure 14 shows how to process

the semantic information in Semantic Web and

e-business applications based on the ontology

KLHUDUFK\ LQWURGXFHG LQ WKH ³%XLOGLQJ

2QWRO-ogy System” section We consider the Semantic

:HESDJHV¿UVWO\6HPDQWLF:HESDJHUHIHUVWR

ontologies O4, O5, and O7 Semantic Webpage2

refers to ontologies O5 and O3 If some

informa-tion in Semantic Webpage1 is annotated with the

concepts from O4, obviously Semantic Webpage2

has no such information corresponding to

Se-mantic Webpage1, that is, SeSe-mantic Webpage1 is

semantically different from Semantic Webpage2

for such information If some information in

Se-mantic Webpage1 is annotated by the concepts

from O5, it is possible that Semantic Webpage1

and Semantic Webpage2 have the same

seman-tic information because Semanseman-tic Webpage2 is

also annotated with concepts from O5; they can

exchange the semantic information Semantic

Webpage1 is annotated with the concepts from

O7, Semantic Webpage2 is annotated with the

concepts from O3, and we can see that O7 inherits

O3 Therefore if Semantic Webpage1 is annotated ZLWKWKHFRQFHSWVQHZO\GH¿QHGLQ26HPDQWLF Webpage1 and Semantic Webpage2 do not have the same semantic information about the concepts

in O7 If Semantic Webpage1 is annotated with the concepts in O7 which are inherited from O3, Semantic Webpage1 and Semantic Webpage2 may have the same semantic information about the concepts in O3 It is similar for the semantic information exchange among the e-business partners

Because we organize ontologies with hierar-FKLHVLWLVHDV\WR¿QGWKHDSSURSULDWHFRQFHSWV LQRQWRORJLHVEDVHGRQFODVVL¿FDWLRQVDQGOHYHOV

to annotate the Semantic Web pages and the agents for e-business partners Also, because of the hierarchy of ontologies, it is faster to process the semantic information, that is, it is faster to search and map the concepts in ontologies based

on hierarchies; the search is only at several related (related to the semantic information in semantic Web or e-business) paths of the ontology hierarchy, but not all the paths

Figure 14 Semantic information processing in Semantic Web and e-business

O1

O2

O4

O3

…

…

O6

Semantic Webpage1

e-Business Partner1

…

…

Semantic Webpage2

e-Business Partner2

In this chapter, we discuss how to effectively

organize ontology languages and ontologies and

GLVFXVVKRZWRHI¿FLHQWO\SURFHVVVHPDQWLFLQIRU-mation in Semantic Web and e-business Figure 15

shows the whole framework to organize ontology

languages, ontologies, and semantic applications

(Semantic Web and e-business) The primitives

in ontology languages organized with hierarchies DUHXVHGWRGH¿QHRQWRORJLHVDQGWKHFRQFHSWV

in ontologies organized with hierarchies are used

to annotate and process semantic information in Semantic Web pages and e-business

More concretely, because we organize ontology language with hierarchies, we can automatically

Figure 15 Framework to organize ontology languages, ontologies and semantic applications

O1

O2

O4

O3

…

…

O6

Semantic Webpage1

e-Business Partner1

…

…

Semantic Webpage2

e-Business Partner2

RDF RDFS

DAML+OIL OWL

Semantic applications:

Semantic Web and e-Business Ontology hierarchy

Ontology language hierarchy

languages DAML, OIL, and DAML+OIL Our

architecture can help to translate the existing

RQWRORJLHVWRRQWRORJLHVGH¿QHGZLWKWKHODWHVW

ontology language—OWL Furthermore, we can

use single namespace to refer to all the primitives

from different ontology languages, and our

on-tology language hierarchies can help to translate

the namespace to the proper namespaces The

ontology designer need not bear in mind which

ontology language the primitive exactly comes

IURP :LWK WKHVH WHFKQLTXHV WKH HI¿FLHQF\ RI

ontology building will be improved

We also organize ontologies with hierarchies

and we discuss some techniques to process the

FRQÀLFWV LQ RQWRORJ\ GHVLJQ &RQVLVWHQW DQG

semantic clear ontologies are very important to

semantic information processing The integrated

environment of ontology organizations makes the

semantics in a domain clear

Based on the hierarchy of ontologies, the

Web pages of Semantic Web and the agents for

e-business partners can be easily annotated, and

the semantic information processing can be

pro-FHVVHGHI¿FLHQWO\

REFERENCES

Amin, M A., & Morbach, J (2005) The

DAML+OIL to OWL converter Retrieved July

10, 2005, from http://www.lpt.rwth-aachen.de/

Research/OntoCAPE/daml2owl.php

Bray, T., Hollander, D., & Layman, A (1999)

Namespaces in XML World Wide Web

Consor-tium Retrieved January 14, 1999, from http://

www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/

Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C M.,

Maler, E., Yergeau, F., & Cowan, J (2004)

Extensible markup language (XML) 1.1 W3C

recommendation Retrieved February 4, 2004,

from

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml11-20040204/

Brickley, D., & Guha, R V (2004) Resource

description framework schema (RDFS)

speci-¿FDWLRQ  W3C Recommendation Retrieved

February 10, 2004, from http://www.w3.org/TR/ rdf-schema/

Connolly, D., Harmelen, F V., Horrocks, I., Mc-Guinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P F., & Stein, L A

(2001a) Annotated DAML+OIL ontology markup.

W3C note Retrieved December 18, 2001, from http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-walkthru/ Connolly, D., Harmelen, F V., Horrocks, I., Mc-Guinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P F., & Stein, L

A (2001b, March) DAML+OIL reference

descrip-tion W3C Note Retrieved April 11, 2001, from

http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference.html

Garshol, L M., & Moore, G (2004) Topic maps—

XML syntax Retrieved March 16, 2004, from

http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0495.htm

Gil, Y., & Ratnakar, V (2002) A comparison of

(semantic) markup languages In M S Haller

& G Simmons (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th

International FLAIRS Conference, Special Track

on Semantic Web, Pensacola, FL (pp 413-418)

AAAI Press

Gomez-Perez, A., & Corcho, O (2002)

Ontol-ogy languages for the Semantic Web Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 17(1), 54- 60.

Gruber, T R (1992) Ontolingua: A mechanism

to support portable ontologies (Tech Rep No

KSL-91-66) Standford Knowledge Systems Laboratory

Gruber, T R (1993) A translation approach

to portable ontologies Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199-220.

Harmelen, F V., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuin-ness, D L., Patel-Schneider, P F., & Stein., L A

(2004) OWL Web ontology language reference.

W3C Recommendation Retrieved February 10,

2004, from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/

Horrocks, I., Fensel, D., Broekstra, J., Decker, S.,

Erdmann, M., Goble, C., et al (2001) The ontology

inference layer OIL Retrieved December 31, 2001,

from http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/

Kalfoglou, Y., & Schorlemmer, M (2003)

Ontol-ogy mapping: The state of the art The Knowledge

Engineering Review, 18(1), 1-31.

Lassila, D O., & Swick, R (1999) Resource

description framework (RDF) model and syntax

VSHFL¿FDWLRQ W3C Recommendation Retrieved

January 5, 1999, from

http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-syntax/

Lee, T B (1999) The SemanticWeb homepage.

Retrieved December 31, 1999, from http://www

semanticweb.org

Lee, T B., Fielding, R., & Masinter, L (1998,

August) 8QLIRUP UHVRXUFH LGHQWL¿HUV 85,

Generic syntax IETF Draft Standard (RFC 2396)

Retrieved August 31, 1998, from http://www.ietf org/rfc/rfc2396.txt

Ling, T W., & Teo, P K (1993) Inheritance

FRQÀLFWVLQREMHFWRULHQWHGV\VWHPV In V Marík,

J Lazanský, & R Wagner (Eds.), Proceedings

of Database and Expert Systems Applications

(LNCS 720, pp 189-200) Prague, Czech Repub-lic: Springer

/XNH 6  +HÀLQ -  $SULO  SHOE

VSHFL¿FDWLRQ Retrieved April 28, 2000, from

http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/SHOE/spec html

MacGregor, R (1991) Inside the LOOM

descrip-WLRQFODVVL¿HU SIGART Bulletin, 2(3), 88-92.

Popp, B (2000) The DARPA agent markup

lan-guage homepage Retrieved September 1, 2000,

from http://daml.semanticweb.org/

This work was previously published in Semantic Web Technologies and E-Business: Toward the Integrated Virtual Organiza-tion and Business Process AutomaOrganiza-tion, edited by A Salam and J Stevens, pp 212-235, copyright 2007 by IGI Publishing (an imprint of IGI Global).

Chapter 7.22

Semantic Web Standards and Ontologies in the Medical

Sciences and Healthcare

Sherrie D Cannoy

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

Lakshmi Iyer

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

ABSTRACT

This chapter will discuss Semantic Web

stan-dards and ontologies in two areas: (1) the

medi-FDOVFLHQFHV¿HOGDQGWKHKHDOWKFDUHLQGXVWU\

Semantic Web standards are important in the

medical sciences since much of the medical

research that is available needs an avenue to be

shared across disparate computer systems

On-tologies can provide a basis for the searching of

context-based medical research information so

that it can be integrated and used as a foundation

for future research The healthcare industry will

EHH[DPLQHGVSHFL¿FDOO\LQLWVXVHRIelectronic

health records (EHR), which need Semantic Web

standards to be communicated across different

EHR systems The increased use of EHRs across

healthcare organizations will also require

ontolo-gies to support context-sensitive searching of

in-formation, as well as creating context-based rules for appointments, procedures, and tests so that the quality of healthcare is improved Literature

in these areas has been combined in this chapter

to provide a general view of how Semantic Web standards and ontologies are used, and to give examples of applications in the areas of healthcare and the medical sciences

INTRODUCTION

³2QH RI WKH PRVW FKDOOHQJLQJ SUREOHPV LQ WKH healthcare domain is providing interoperability among healthcare systems” (Bicer, Laleci, Do-gac, & Kabak, 2005) The importance of this interoperability is to enable universal forms of knowledge representation integrate heterogeneous information, answer complex queries, and pursue

Kalfoglou and Schorlemmer (2003) survey the

related works on ontology mapping and indicate

WKDWPRVWRIWKHSUHYLRXVZRUNVDUHDERXW¿QGLQJ

the similarities and differences... approach The two Cs in ontologies O2 and O3 have the same semantics, and they have the same name Obviously, there will be confusion when O4 inherits C from O2 and O3 In ontology design, the semantics