Using Ontologies for the Design of Data Warehouses

Obtaining an implementation of a data warehouse is a complex task that forces designers to acquire wide knowledge of the domain, thus requiring a high level of expertise and becoming it a prone-to-fail task. Based on our experience, we have detected a set of situations we have faced up with in real-world projects in which we believe that the use of ontologies will improve several aspects of the design of data warehouses. The aim of this article is to describe several shortcomings of current data warehouse design approaches and discuss the benefit of using ontologies to overcome them. This work is a starting point for discussing the convenience of using ontologies in data warehouse design.Comment: 15 pages, 2 figure

Some Issues on Ontology Integration

The word integration has been used with different meanings in the ontology field. This article aims at clarifying the meaning of the word “integration” and presenting some of the relevant work done in integration. We identify three meanings of ontology “integration”: when building a new ontology reusing (by assembling, extending, specializing or adapting) other ontologies already available; when building an ontology by merging several ontologies into a single one that unifies all of them; when building an application using one or more ontologies. We discuss the different meanings of “integration”, identify the main characteristics of the three different processes and proposethree words to distinguish among those meanings:integration, merge and use

Ontology as Product-Service System: Lessons Learned from GO, BFO and DOLCE

This paper defends a view of the Gene Ontology (GO) and of Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) as examples of what the manufacturing industry calls product-service systems. This means that they are products (the ontologies) bundled with a range of ontology services such as updates, training, help desk, and permanent identifiers. The paper argues that GO and BFO are contrasted in this respect with DOLCE, which approximates more closely to a scientific theory or a scientific publication. The paper provides a detailed overview of ontology services and concludes with a discussion of some implications of the product-service system approach for the understanding of the nature of applied ontology. Ontology developer communities are compared in this respect with developers of scientific theories and of standards (such as W3C). For each of these we can ask: what kinds of products do they develop and what kinds of services do they provide for the users of these products

Expressing OWL axioms by English sentences: dubious in theory, feasible in practice

With OWL (Web Ontology Language) established as a standard for encoding ontologies on the Semantic Web, interest has begun to focus on the task of verbalising OWL code in controlled English (or other natural language). Current approaches to this task assume that axioms in OWL can be mapped to sentences in English. We examine three potential problems with this approach (concerning logical sophistication, information structure, and size), and show that although these could in theory lead to insuperable difficulties, in practice they seldom arise, because ontology developers use OWL in ways that favour a transparent mapping. This result is evidenced by an analysis of patterns from a corpus of over 600,000 axioms in about 200 ontologies

NCBO Ontology Recommender 2.0: An Enhanced Approach for Biomedical Ontology Recommendation

Biomedical researchers use ontologies to annotate their data with ontology terms, enabling better data integration and interoperability. However, the number, variety and complexity of current biomedical ontologies make it cumbersome for researchers to determine which ones to reuse for their specific needs. To overcome this problem, in 2010 the National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) released the Ontology Recommender, which is a service that receives a biomedical text corpus or a list of keywords and suggests ontologies appropriate for referencing the indicated terms. We developed a new version of the NCBO Ontology Recommender. Called Ontology Recommender 2.0, it uses a new recommendation approach that evaluates the relevance of an ontology to biomedical text data according to four criteria: (1) the extent to which the ontology covers the input data; (2) the acceptance of the ontology in the biomedical community; (3) the level of detail of the ontology classes that cover the input data; and (4) the specialization of the ontology to the domain of the input data. Our evaluation shows that the enhanced recommender provides higher quality suggestions than the original approach, providing better coverage of the input data, more detailed information about their concepts, increased specialization for the domain of the input data, and greater acceptance and use in the community. In addition, it provides users with more explanatory information, along with suggestions of not only individual ontologies but also groups of ontologies. It also can be customized to fit the needs of different scenarios. Ontology Recommender 2.0 combines the strengths of its predecessor with a range of adjustments and new features that improve its reliability and usefulness. Ontology Recommender 2.0 recommends over 500 biomedical ontologies from the NCBO BioPortal platform, where it is openly available.Comment: 29 pages, 8 figures, 11 table

Physical Properties of Biological Entities: An Introduction to the Ontology of Physics for Biology

As biomedical investigators strive to integrate data and analyses across spatiotemporal scales and biomedical domains, they have recognized the benefits of formalizing languages and terminologies via computational ontologies. Although ontologies for biological entities—molecules, cells, organs—are well-established, there are no principled ontologies of physical properties—energies, volumes, flow rates—of those entities. In this paper, we introduce the Ontology of Physics for Biology (OPB), a reference ontology of classical physics designed for annotating biophysical content of growing repositories of biomedical datasets and analytical models. The OPB's semantic framework, traceable to James Clerk Maxwell, encompasses modern theories of system dynamics and thermodynamics, and is implemented as a computational ontology that references available upper ontologies. In this paper we focus on the OPB classes that are designed for annotating physical properties encoded in biomedical datasets and computational models, and we discuss how the OPB framework will facilitate biomedical knowledge integration

Towards a Reference Terminology for Ontology Research and Development in the Biomedical Domain

Ontology is a burgeoning field, involving researchers from the computer science, philosophy, data and software engineering, logic, linguistics, and terminology domains. Many ontology-related terms with precise meanings in one of these domains have different meanings in others. Our purpose here is to initiate a path towards disambiguation of such terms. We draw primarily on the literature of biomedical informatics, not least because the problems caused by unclear or ambiguous use of terms have been there most thoroughly addressed. We advance a proposal resting on a distinction of three levels too often run together in biomedical ontology research: 1. the level of reality; 2. the level of cognitive representations of this reality; 3. the level of textual and graphical artifacts. We propose a reference terminology for ontology research and development that is designed to serve as common hub into which the several competing disciplinary terminologies can be mapped. We then justify our terminological choices through a critical treatment of the ‘concept orientation’ in biomedical terminology research

Interdisciplinary perspectives on the development, integration and application of cognitive ontologies

We discuss recent progress in the development of cognitive ontologies and summarize three challenges in the coordinated development and application of these resources. Challenge 1 is to adopt a standardized definition for cognitive processes. We describe three possibilities and recommend one that is consistent with the standard view in cognitive and biomedical sciences. Challenge 2 is harmonization. Gaps and conflicts in representation must be resolved so that these resources can be combined for mark-up and interpretation of multi-modal data. Finally, Challenge 3 is to test the utility of these resources for large-scale annotation of data, search and query, and knowledge discovery and integration. As term definitions are tested and revised, harmonization should enable coordinated updates across ontologies. However, the true test of these definitions will be in their community-wide adoption which will test whether they support valid inferences about psychological and neuroscientific data