Ontology based Clinical Practice Justification in Natural Language

One of the most important contributions that any decision support system can make to achieve wide acceptance among any community is to be able to justify its own suggestions. When dealing with highly technical and scientifically advanced practitioners like medical doctors or any other related clinical workers, the ability to justify itself using the domain specialist usual terminology and technicalities is imperative. In this article we demonstrate the use of an ontological framework as inferencing basis for automatic sound clinical suggestions providing. Our work has two main contributions, consolidating the use of \{OGCP\} (Ontology for General Clinical Practice) as foundation and providing controlled English justifications of the extracted suggestions. We found that clinical practitioners feel as acceptable the Attempto Controlled English justifications generated from the knowledge base

X-IM Framework to Overcome Semantic Heterogeneity Across XBRL Filings

Semantic heterogeneity in XBRL precludes the full automation of the business reporting pipeline, a key motivation for the SEC’s XBRL mandate. To mitigate this problem, several approaches leveraging Semantic Web technologies have emerged. While some approaches are promising, their mapping accuracy in resolving semantic heterogeneity must be improved to realize the promised benefits of XBRL. Considering this limitation and following the design science research methodology (DSRM), we develop a novel framework, XBRL indexing-based mapping (X-IM), which takes advantage of the representational model of representation theory to map heterogeneous XBRL elements across diverse XBRL filings. The application of representation theory to the design process informs the use of XBRL label linkbases as a repository of regularities constitutive of the relationships between financial item names and the concepts they describe along a set of equivalent financial terms of interest to investors. The instantiated design artifact is thoroughly evaluated using standard information retrieval metrics. Our experiments show that X-IM significantly outperforms existing methods

Practical reasoning for defeasable description logics.

Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 2016.Description Logics (DLs) are a family of logic-based languages for formalising ontologies. They have useful computational properties allowing the development of automated reasoning engines to infer implicit knowledge from ontologies. However, classical DLs do not tolerate exceptions to speci ed knowledge. This led to the prominent research area of nonmonotonic or defeasible reasoning for DLs, where most techniques were adapted from seminal works for propositional and rst-order logic. Despite the topic's attention in the literature, there remains no consensus on what \sensible" defeasible reasoning means for DLs. Furthermore, there are solid foundations for several approaches and yet no serious implementations and practical tools. In this thesis we address the aforementioned issues in a broad sense. We identify the preferential approach, by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM) in propositional logic, as a suitable abstract framework for de ning and studying the precepts of sensible defeasible reasoning. We give a generalisation of KLM's precepts, and their arguments motivating them, to the DL case. We also provide several preferential algorithms for defeasible entailment in DLs; evaluate these algorithms, and the main alternatives in the literature, against the agreed upon precepts; extensively test the performance of these algorithms; and ultimately consolidate our implementation in a software tool called Defeasible-Inference Platform (DIP). We found some useful entailment regimes within the preferential context that satisfy all the KLM properties, and some that have scalable performance in real world ontologies even without extensive optimisation

Interactive semantic feedback for intuitive ontology authoring

The complexity of ontology authoring and the difficulty to master the use of existing ontology authoring tools, put significant constraints on the involvement of both domain experts and knowledge engineers in ontology authoring. This often requires substantial effort for fixing ontologies defects (e.g. inconsistency, unsatisfiability, missing or unintended implications, redundancy, isolated entities). The paper argues that ontology authoring tools should provide immediate semantic feedback upon entering ontological constructs. We present a framework to analyse input axioms and provide meaningful feedback at a semantic level. The framework has been used to augment an existing Controlled Natural Language-based ontology authoring tool – ROO. An experimental study with ROO has been conducted to examine users' reactions to the semantic feedback and the effect on their ontology authoring behaviour. The study strongly supported responsive intuitive ontology authoring tools, and identified future directions to extend and integrate semantic feedback

Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks

Nowadays, many websites allow social networking between their users in an explicit or implicit way. In this work, we show how argumentation schemes theory can provide a valuable help to formalize and structure on-line discussions and user opinions in decision support and business oriented websites that held social networks between their users. Two real case studies are studied and analysed. Then, guidelines to enhance social decision support and recommendations with argumentation are provided.This work summarises results of the authors joint research, funded by an STMS of the Agreement Technologies COST Action 0801, by the Spanish government grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO 2008/051].Heras Barberá, SM.; Atkinson, KM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Grasso, F.; Julian Inglada, VJ.; Mcburney, PJ. (2013). Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks. Artificial Intelligence Review. 39(1):39-62. doi:10.1007/s10462-012-9389-0S3962391Amgoud L (2009) Argumentation for decision making. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinAnderson P (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Iechnology and Standards Watch reportBentahar J, Meyer CJJ, Moulin B (2007) Securing agent-oriented systems: an argumentation and reputation-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on information technology: new generations (ITNG 2007), IEEE Computer Society, pp 507–515Buckingham Shum S (2008) Cohere: towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA, pp 28–30Burke R (2002) Hybrid recommender systems: survey and experiments. User Model User-Adapt Interact 12:331–370Cartwright D, Atkinson K (2008) Political engagement through tools for argumentation. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 2008), pp 116–127Chesñevar C, McGinnis J, Modgil S, Rahwan I, Reed C, Simari G, South M, Vreeswijk G, Willmott S (2006) Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl Eng Rev 21(4):293–316Chesñevar CI, Maguitman AG, Gonzàlez MP (2009) Empowering recommendation technologies through argumentation. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 403–422García AJ, Dix J, Simari GR (2009) Argument-based logic programming. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinGolbeck J (2006) Generating predictive movie recommendations from trust in social networks. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on trust management, LNCS, vol 3986, 93–104Gordon T, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896Guha R, Kumar R, Raghavan P, Tomkins A (2004) Propagating trust and distrust. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on, World Wide Web, pp 403–412Heras S, Navarro M, Botti V, Julián V (2009) Applying dialogue games to manage recommendation in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent aystems, ArgMASHeras S, Atkinson K, Botti V, Grasso F, Julián V, McBurney P (2010a) How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA, vol 216, pp 267–274Heras S, Atkinson K, Botti V, Grasso F, Julián V, McBurney P (2010b) Applying argumentation to enhance dialogues in social networks. In: ECAI 2010 workshop on computational models of natural argument, CMNA, pp 10–17Karacapilidis N, Tzagarakis M (2007) Web-based collaboration and decision making support: a multi-disciplinary approach. Web-Based Learn Teach Technol 2(4):12–23Kim D, Benbasat I (2003) Trust-related arguments in internet stores: a framework for evaluation. J Electron Commer Res 4(2):49–64Kim D, Benbasat I (2006) The effects of trust-assuring arguments on consumer trust in internet stores: application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Inf Syst Rese 17(3):286–300Laera L, Tamma V, Euzenat J, Bench-Capon T, Payne T (2006) Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In: Proceedings of the 5th international semantic web conference (ISWC 2006)Lange C, Bojãrs U, Groza T, Breslin J, Handschuh S (2008) Expressing argumentative discussions in social media sites. In: Social data on the web (SDoW2008) workshop at the 7th international semantic web conferenceLinden G, Smith B, York J (2003) Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Comput 7(1):76–80Linden G, Hong J, Stonebraker M, Guzdial M (2009) Recommendation algorithms, online privacy and more. Commun ACM, 52(5)Mika P (2007) Ontologies are us: a unified model of social networks and semantics. J Web Semant 5(1):5–15Montaner M, López B, de la Rosa JL (2002) Opinion-based filtering through trust. In: Cooperative information agents VI, LNCS, vol 2446, pp 127–144Ontañón S, Plaza E (2008) Argumentation-based information exchange in prediction markets. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMASPazzani MJ, Billsus D (2007) Content-based recommendation systems. In: The adaptive web, LNCS, vol 4321, pp 325–341Rahwan I, Zablith F, Reed C (2007) Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artif Intell 171(10–15):897–921Rahwan I, Banihashemi B (2008) Arguments in OWL: a progress report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA), pp 297–310Reed C, Walton D (2007) Argumentation schemes in dialogue. In: Dissensus and the search for common ground, OSSA-07, volume CD-ROM, pp 1–11Sabater J, Sierra C (2002) Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 1, pp 475–482Schafer JB, Konstan JA, Riedl J (2001) E-commerce recommendation applications. Data Min Knowl Discov 5:115–153Schafer JB, Frankowski D, Herlocker J, Sen S (2007) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. In: The adaptive web, LNCS, vol 4321, pp 291–324Schneider J, Groza T, Passant A (2012) A review of argumentation for the aocial semantic web. Semantic web-interoperability, usability, applicability. IOS Press, Washington, DCTempich C, Pinto HS, Sure Y, Staab S (2005) An argumentation ontology for distributed, loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In: Proceedings of the 2nd European semantic web conference, ESWC, pp 241–256Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKTrojahn C, Quaresma P, Vieira R, Isaac A (2009) Comparing argumentation frameworks for composite ontology matching. in: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMASTruthMapping. http://truthmapping.com/Walter FE, Battiston S, Schweitzer F (2007) A model of a trust-based recommendation system on a social network. J Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 16(1):57–74Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, New York, NYWalton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeWells S, Gourlay C, Reed C (2009) Argument blogging. Computational models of natural argument, CMNAWyner A, Schneider J (2012) Arguing from a point of view. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on agreement technologie

Ubiquitous and context-aware computing modelling : study of devices integration in their environment

Dissertation presented as the partial requirement for obtaining a Master's degree in Information Management, specialization in Information Systems and Technologies ManagementIn an almost imperceptible way, ubiquitous and context-aware computing make part of our everyday lives, as the world has developed in an interconnected way between humans and technological devices. This interconnectedness raises the need to integrate humans’ interaction with the different devices they use in different social contexts and environments. In the proposed research, it is suggested the development of new scenario building based on a current ubiquitous computing model dedicated to the environment context-awareness. We will also follow previous research made on the formal structure computation model based on social paradigm theory, dedicated to embed devices into different context environments with social roles developed by Santos (2012/2015). Furthermore, several socially relevant context scenarios are to be identified and studied. Once identified, we gather and document the requirements that devices should have, according to the model, in order to achieve a correct integration in their contextual environment

Using structural and semantic methodologies to enhance biomedical terminologies

Biomedical terminologies and ontologies underlie various Health Information Systems (HISs), Electronic Health Record (EHR) Systems, Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) and health administrative systems. Moreover, the proliferation of interdisciplinary research efforts in the biomedical field is fueling the need to overcome terminological barriers when integrating knowledge from different fields into a unified research project. Therefore well-developed and well-maintained terminologies are in high demand. Most of the biomedical terminologies are large and complex, which makes it impossible for human experts to manually detect and correct all errors and inconsistencies. Automated and semi-automated Quality Assurance methodologies that focus on areas that are more likely to contain errors and inconsistencies are therefore important. In this dissertation, structural and semantic methodologies are used to enhance biomedical terminologies. The dissertation work is divided into three major parts. The first part consists of structural auditing techniques for the Semantic Network of the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), which serves as a vocabulary knowledge base for biomedical research in various applications. Research techniques are presented on how to automatically identify and prevent erroneous semantic type assignments to concepts. The Web-based adviseEditor system is introduced to help UMLS editors to make correct multiple semantic type assignments to concepts. It is made available to the National Library of Medicine for future use in maintaining the UMLS. The second part of this dissertation is on how to enhance the conceptual content of SNOMED CT by methods of semantic harmonization. By 2015, SNOMED will become the standard terminology for EH R encoding of diagnoses and problem lists. In order to enrich the semantics and coverage of SNOMED CT for clinical and research applications, the problem of semantic harmonization between SNOMED CT and six reference terminologies is approached by 1) comparing the vertical density of SNOM ED CT with the reference terminologies to find potential concepts for export and import; and 2) categorizing the relationships between structurally congruent concepts from pairs of terminologies, with SNOMED CT being one terminology in the pair. Six kinds of configurations are observed, e.g., alternative classifications, and suggested synonyms. For each configuration, a corresponding solution is presented for enhancing one or both of the terminologies. The third part applies Quality Assurance techniques based on “Abstraction Networks” to biomedical ontologies in BioPortal. The National Center for Biomedical Ontology provides B ioPortal as a repository of over 350 biomedical ontologies covering a wide range of domains. It is extremely difficult to design a new Quality Assurance methodology for each ontology in BioPortal. Fortunately, groups of ontologies in BioPortal share common structural features. Thus, they can be grouped into families based on combinations of these features. A uniform Quality Assurance methodology design for each family will achieve improved efficiency, which is critical with the limited Quality Assurance resources available to most ontology curators. In this dissertation, a family-based framework covering 186 BioPortal ontologies and accompanying Quality Assurance methods based on abstraction networks are presented to tackle this problem