RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems

["Warzel, Denise (NIH/NCI)" <warzeld@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Its not a perfect fit, but the NCI has a registry and a bunch of web based software tools and APIs for creating content and getting things ...its based on the ISO 11179...while 11179 primary focus is registration of the semantics of a data element, the other types of administered items include classification schemes...and concepts...and we have used it to register other things such a descriptions of a protocol, form, etc...

 

the softawre is open source...so there is a potential for it to be modified - the backend is an Oracle database....

 

i'd be happy to do an overview presentation since there aren't any detailed papers on it (we've been too busy buildign and maintaining it to write a paper just on the registry...)

 

It know as the caDSR (Cancer Data Standards Repository) but its being used for other types of health related data inlcuding soon to be alot of HL7 content...

 

http://ncicb.nci.nih.gov/core/caDSR

 

Its partitioned into 'Contexts' so its conceivable that one could be set up for Ontology Working Group' project, if its a close enough fit...the idea of independently entering concepts and allowing them to be classified into multiple classification schemes is easily supported - with a few additional business rules to support the ONTAC Context it might be an easy way to get going? 

 

 

Denise Warzel

Assistant Director

caDSR

National Cancer Institute, Center for Bioinformatics

6116 Executive Blvd. Suite 408

Rockville, MD

303-722-9446 Voice

303-777-1419 Fax

warzeld@xxxxxxxxxxxx

http://ncicb.nci.nih.gov/core/caDSR

 

---

From: Arsic, Antoinette [mailto:aarsic@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:37 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems

I would like to participate in the Ontology/KOS registry WG.

 

MS Information Sciences, ALA accredited.

 

 

Antoinette Arsic

Sr. Information Systems Engineer, The MITRE Corporation

703-337-9016 (VOIP)

*703-983-5286 (new office number, was 883)

*443-567-2703 (new cell)

 

 

---

From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dagobert Soergel
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:08 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion; ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems

We do not have the resources to create an ontology library system.  Rather we should adopt one once we are further along.  At that point we can use the criteria in the Ding & Fensel article but need to update the survey.

Right now we need an ontology registry, which is a much more light-weight proposition.  Since much information for constructing full-fledged rigorous ontologies can be gleaned from other types of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), we actually need a KOS registry.  There are many attempts at creating such registries (going back to the sixties), but none has been successful in the sense of being maintained continuously. However, it is now possible to set up a web-enabled database where authors (individuals or organizations) can register their own ontologies and other KOS in a structured format.  (A WIKI is not the best tool for this.)  Such a registry should also cover use cases for ontologies

I am working on possibly using a database tool for this purpose that was prototyped by a government agency.

Attached are two documents, one a set of evaluation criteria for KOS and one giving templates for describing KOS and KOS use cases in a database.  This materials have been developed with more traditional schemes such as MeSH or Snomed or the Art and Architecture Thesaurus in mind, so they need to be extended to capture characteristics and uses of formal ontologies.

In the registry, the KOS must be identified by subject domain.  Many different approaches to this can coexist, and the scheme that Roy suggests can certainly be one of these approaches.  The concepts to be used for this subject indexing of KOS need to be understandable for people but need not to be as carefully specified as concepts in a formal ontology.

We formed a subgroup to consider registries.  It seems that we need to establish for sure who wanted to participate.  Pat and I believe the group includes at least the people listed below, but we also believe there were more.  So please add your name if you are interested.  The group should meet soon to work on the problems outlined above and get this going, as a registry is a step that should logically precede working on comparing ontologies.

DS

Ontology/KOS registry WG

Pat Cassidy
Roy Roebuck
Olivier Bodenreider
Dagobert Soergel





At 10/22/2005 01:18 PM, Roy Roebuck wrote:

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5D72C.9A2912C9"

Excellent!  I’ve reviewed the material Gary cites, and agree that an “ontology library” capability would be very useful in the COSMO, ONTAC, SICOP, and Web-Service collaborations.  I also submit that a “natural” outline of ontologies (i.e., packages of functions, processes, and process input/control/output/mechanism resources such as metadata, data, funds, skills) as services could be organized using the General Ontology (GO) as outlined below:
 

Dagobert Soergel
College of Information Studies
University of Maryland
4105 Hornbake Library
College Park, MD 20742-4345
Office: 301-405-2037     Home:  703-823-2840        Mobile: 703-585-2840
OFax:   301-314-9145        HFax: 703-823-6427
dsoergel@xxxxxxx     www.dsoergel.com

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (01)