1 / 16

Modeling Life Science Knowledge with OWL 1.1

Explore the application of OWL 1.1 in life science modeling, emphasizing the importance of upper-level ontologies for consistency. Learn about using a minimal set of basic relations and N-ary modeling for complex structures. Discover how process-oriented ontologies can improve representation clarity and ontology versioning challenges. Dive into N-ary predicates and ontology as bags of concepts for enhanced knowledge organization. Join the discussion on advancing semantic coherence and ontology mapping in life sciences.

yered
Télécharger la présentation

Modeling Life Science Knowledge with OWL 1.1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modeling Life Science Knowledge with OWL 1.1 Michel Dumontier & Natalia Villanueva-Rosales Department of Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, School of Computer Science Carleton University OWLED-DC 2008 April 1, 2008

  2. Subscribing to Dogma - a sign of (community) maturity? • Upper level ontologies (BFO) add consistency to the representation • Not trivial. Many issues still under philosophical development • Semantic coherence across ontologies, possibly easier for mapping • Use a minimum set of basic relations (BRO) • Easier to remember • Can be used to map all other relations • Put the two together (NULO). Force constraints on use. Process only hasPart hasQuality Quality Process hasParticipant Object

  3. Evil. “Nonstructural Restrictions on Axioms” Protégé 4 (build 60) and the FaCT++ (Version 1.1.10).

  4. Pure Evil.

  5. Stop The Evil. • I’m lazy. • Explain it to me in English or something closer to it. • I don’t want to learn yet another language to understand the one I’m working with ;-)

  6. Chain Inclusion Axiom • Sweet! • hasPart o hasParticipant -> hasParticipant • P4 interface has current limit of 2 • Problems with reasoning over properties with additional owl 1.1 characteristics… Process hasParticipant (inferred) Transitive (reflexive) hasPart Process hasParticipant Object

  7. Role chains: Immediate benefit for n-ary modeling

  8. Qualified Cardinality Restrictions • Yai! • Atom Ontology • CarbonAtom := Atom hasPart 6 Proton • CarbonAtom := Atom hasQuality 1 (AtomicNumber hasValue value 6) • Widely used and absolutely required.

  9. Disjoint Union • Atom Ontology • 118 disjoint atom types • Syntactic sugar vastly reduces xml/rdf rendering • NCBI Taxonomy • 285,000 nodes • At least 100,000 disjoint unions • (some ontological problems due to multiple inheritance)

  10. New requirements

  11. Ontology Versioning • Not currently possible to indicate a newer compatible or incompatible version • OWL 1.0 • owl:priorVersion; • owl:backwardCompatibleWith • owl:incompatibleWith • OWL 1.x • owl:nextVersion • owl:nextCompatibleVersion

  12. N-ary predicates • N-ary data predicates • Many use cases on the website, clear utility • Need to investigate N-ary object predicates • DLR • Tertiary predicates initiate path to Temporal Description Logics

  13. Description Graphs • DL tends to underspecify • Scenerio 1: • There exists a graph around the concept • Scenerio 2: • We can realize instances as members of that concept • Immediate use for representing molecules and cyclic functional groups

  14. Ontologies as Bags of Concepts

  15. dumontierlab.com michel_dumontier@carleton.ca

More Related