Developing techniques for enhancing comprehensibility of controlled medical terminologies

A controlled medical terminology (CMT) is a collection of concepts (or terms) that are used in the medical domain. Typically, a CMT also contains attributes of those concepts and/or relationships between those concepts. Electronic CMTs are extremely useful and important for communication between and integration of independent information systems in healthcare, because data in this area is highly fragmented. A single query in this area might involve several databases, e.g., a clinical database, a pharmacy database, a radiology database, and a lab test database. Unfortunately, the extensive sizes of CMTs, often containing tens of thousands of concepts and hundreds of thousands of relationships between pairs of those concepts, impose steep learning curves for new users of such CMTs. In this dissertation, we address the problem of helping a user to orient himself in an existing large CMT. In order to help a user comprehend a large, complex CMT, we need to provide abstract views of the CMT. However, at this time, no tools exist for providing a user with such abstract views. One reason for the lack of tools is the absence of a good theory on how to partition an overwhelming CMT into manageable pieces. In this dissertation, we try to overcome the described problem by using a threepronged approach. (1) We use the power of Object-Oriented Databases to design a schema extraction process for large, complex CMTs. The schema resulting from this process provides an excellent, compact representation of the CMT. (2) We develop a theory and a methodology for partitioning a large OODI3 schema, modeled as a graph, into small meaningful units. The methodology relies on the interaction between a human and a computer, making optimal use of the human\u27s semantic knowledge and the computer\u27s speed. Furthermore, the theory and methodology developed for the scbemalevel partitioning are also adapted to the object-level of a CMT. (3) We use purely structural similarities for partitioning CMTs, eliminating the need for a human expert in the partitioning methodology mentioned above. Two large medical terminologies are used as our test beds, the Medical Entities Dictionary (MED) and the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), which itself contains a number of terminologies

Massively parallel reasoning in transitive relationship hierarchies

This research focuses on building a parallel knowledge representation and reasoning system for the purpose of making progress in realizing human-like intelligence. To achieve human-like intelligence, it is necessary to model human reasoning processes by programs. Knowledge in the real world is huge in size, complex in structure, and is also constantly changing even in limited domains. Unfortunately, reasoning algorithms are very often intractable, which means that they are too slow for any practical applications. One technique to deal with this problem is to design special-purpose reasoners. Many past Al systems have worked rather nicely for limited problem sizes, but attempts to extend them to realistic subsets of world knowledge have led to difficulties. Even special purpose reasoners are not immune to this impasse. In this work, to overcome this problem, we are combining special purpose reasoners with massive We have developed and implemented a massively parallel transitive closure reasoner, called Hydra, that can dynamically assimilate any transitive, binary relation and efficiently answer queries using the transitive closure of all those relations. Within certain limitations, we achieve constant-time responses for transitive closure queries. Hydra can dynamically insert new concepts or new links into a. knowledge base for realistic problem sizes. To get near human-like reasoning capabilities requires the possibility of dynamic updates of the transitive relation hierarchies. Our incremental, massively parallel, update algorithms can achieve almost constant time updates of large knowledge bases. Hydra expands the boundaries of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in a number of different directions: (1) Hydra improves the representational power of current systems. We have developed a set-based representation for class hierarchies that makes it easy to represent class hierarchies on arrays of processors. Furthermore, we have developed and implemented two methods for mapping this set-based representation onto the processor space of a Connection Machine. These two representations, the Grid Representation and the Double Strand Representation successively improve transitive closure reasoning in terms of speed and processor utilization. (2) Hydra allows fast rerieval and dynamic update of a large knowledge base. New fast update algorithms are formulated to dynamically insert new concepts or new relations into a knowledge base of thousands of nodes. (3) Hydra provides reasoning based on mixed hierarchical representations. We have designed representational tools and massively parallel reasoning algorithms to model reasoning in combined IS-A, Part-of, and Contained-in hierarchies. (4) Hydra\u27s reasoning facilities have been successfully applied to the Medical Entities Dictionary, a large medical vocabulary of Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. As a result of (1) - (3), Hydra is more general than many current special-purpose reasoners, faster than currently existing general-purpose reasoners, and its knowledge base can be updated dynamically

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini's opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom's incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications

International Workshop on Description Logics : Bonn, May 28/29, 1994

This collection of papers forms the permanent record of the 1994 Description Logic Workshop, that was held at the Gustav Stresemann Institut in Bonn, Germany on 28 and 29 May 1994, immediately after the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The workshop was set up to be as informal as possible, so this collection cannot hope to capture the discussions associated with the workshop. However, we hope that it will serve to remind participants of their discussion at the workshop, and provide non-participants with indications of the topics that were discussed at the workshop. The workshop consisted of seven regular sessions and one panel session. Each regular session had about four short presentations on a single theme, but also had considerable time reserved for discussion. The themes of the sessions were Foundations of Description Logics, Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems, Language Extensions, Expanding Description Logics, General Applications of Description Logics, Natural Language Applications of Description Logics, Connections between Description Logics and Databases, and the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems. The session on Foundations of Description Logics concentrated on computational properties of description logics, correspondences between description logics and other formalisms, and on semantics of description logics, Similarly, there is discussion on how to develop tractable desription logics, for some notion of tractable, and whether it is useful to worry about achieving tractability at all. Several of the participants argued in favour of a very expressive description logic. This obviously precludes tractability or even decidability of complete reasoning. Klaus Schild proposed that for some purposes one could employ "model checking" (i .e., a closed world assumption) instead of "theorem proving," and has shown that this is still tractable for very large languages. Maurizio Lenzerini\u27s opinion was that it is important to have decidable languages. Tractability cannot be achieved in several application areas because there one needs very expressive constructs: e.g., axioms, complex role constructors, and cycles with fixed-point semantics. For Bob MacGregor, not even decidability is an issue since he claims that Loom\u27s incomplete reasoner is sufficient for his applications. The discussion addressed the question of whether there is still need for foundations, and whether the work on foundation done until now really solved the problems that the designers of early DL systems had. Both questions were mostly answered in the affirmative, with the caveat that new research on foundations should make sure that it is concerned with "real" problems, and not just generates new problems. In the session on Architecture of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems the participants considered different ways of putting together description logics and description logic systems. One way of doing this is to have a different kind of inference strategy for description logics, such as one based on intuitionistic logics or one based directly on rules of inference-thus allowing variant systems. Another way of modifying description logic systems is to divide them up in different ways, such as making a terminology consist of a schema portion and a view portion. Some discussion in this session concerned whether architectures should be influenced by application areas, or even by particular applications. There was considerable discussion at the workshop on how Description Logics should be extended or expanded to make them more useful. There are several methods to do this. The first is to extend the language of descriptions, e.g ., to represent n-ary relations, temporal information, or whole-part relationships, all of which were discussed at the workshop. The second is to add in another kind of reasoning, such as default reasoning, while still keeping the general framework of description logic reasoning. The third is to incorporate descriptions or description-like constructs in a larger reasoner, such as a first order reasoner. This was the approach taken in OMEGA and is the approach being taken in the Loom project. There have been many extensions of the first two kinds proposed for description logics, including several presented at the workshop. One quest ion discussed at the workshop was whether these extensions fit in well with the philosophy of description logic. Another question was whether the presence of many proposals for extensions means that description logics are easy to expand, or that description logics are inadequate representation formalisms? The general consensus was that description logics adequately capture a certain kind of core reasoning and that they lend themselves to incorporation with other kinds of reasoning. Care must be taken, however, to keep the extended versions true to the goals of description logics. The sessions on Applications of Description Logics had presentations on applications of description logics in various areas, including configuration, tutoring, natural language processing, and domain modeling. Most of these applications are research applications, funded by government research programs. There was discussion of what is needed to have more fielded applications of description logics. The session on Connections between Description Logics and Databases considered three kinds of connections between Description Logics and Databases: 1. using Description Logics for expressing database schemas, including local schemas, integrated schemas, and views, integrity constraints, and queries; 2. using Description Logic reasoning for various database-related reasoning, including schema integration and validation, and query optimization, and query validation and organization; and 3. making Description Logic reasoners more like Database Mangagement Systems via optimization. All three of these connections are being actively investigated by the description logic community. The panel session on the Future of Description Logics and Description Logic Systems discussed where the future of description logics will lie. There seems to be a consensus that description logics must forge tighter connections with other formalisms, such as databases or object-oriented systems. In this way, perhaps, description logics will find more real applications