William D Duncan, Matthew Diller, Damion Dooley, William R Hogan, John Beverley
{"title":"Concretizing plan specifications as realizables within the OBO foundry.","authors":"William D Duncan, Matthew Diller, Damion Dooley, William R Hogan, John Beverley","doi":"10.1186/s13326-024-00315-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Within the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry, many ontologies represent the execution of a plan specification as a process in which a realizable entity that concretizes the plan specification, a \"realizable concretization\" (RC), is realized. This representation, which we call the \"RC-account\", provides a straightforward way to relate a plan specification to the entity that bears the realizable concretization and the process that realizes the realizable concretization. However, the adequacy of the RC-account has not been evaluated in the scientific literature. In this manuscript, we provide this evaluation and, thereby, give ontology developers sound reasons to use or not use the RC-account pattern.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of the RC-account reveals that it is not adequate for representing failed plans. If the realizable concretization is flawed in some way, it is unclear what (if any) relation holds between the realizable entity and the plan specification. If the execution (i.e., realization) of the realizable concretization fails to carry out the actions given in the plan specification, it is unclear under the RC-account how to directly relate the failed execution to the entity carrying out the instructions given in the plan specification. These issues are exacerbated in the presence of changing plans.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We propose two solutions for representing failed plans. The first uses the Common Core Ontologies 'prescribed by' relation to connect a plan specification to the entity or process that utilizes the plan specification as a guide. The second, more complex, solution incorporates the process of creating a plan (in the sense of an intention to execute a plan specification) into the representation of executing plan specifications. We hypothesize that the first solution (i.e., use of 'prescribed by') is adequate for most situations. However, more research is needed to test this hypothesis as well as explore the other solutions presented in this manuscript.</p>","PeriodicalId":15055,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Semantics","volume":"15 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11334599/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Semantics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-024-00315-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Within the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry, many ontologies represent the execution of a plan specification as a process in which a realizable entity that concretizes the plan specification, a "realizable concretization" (RC), is realized. This representation, which we call the "RC-account", provides a straightforward way to relate a plan specification to the entity that bears the realizable concretization and the process that realizes the realizable concretization. However, the adequacy of the RC-account has not been evaluated in the scientific literature. In this manuscript, we provide this evaluation and, thereby, give ontology developers sound reasons to use or not use the RC-account pattern.
Results: Analysis of the RC-account reveals that it is not adequate for representing failed plans. If the realizable concretization is flawed in some way, it is unclear what (if any) relation holds between the realizable entity and the plan specification. If the execution (i.e., realization) of the realizable concretization fails to carry out the actions given in the plan specification, it is unclear under the RC-account how to directly relate the failed execution to the entity carrying out the instructions given in the plan specification. These issues are exacerbated in the presence of changing plans.
Conclusions: We propose two solutions for representing failed plans. The first uses the Common Core Ontologies 'prescribed by' relation to connect a plan specification to the entity or process that utilizes the plan specification as a guide. The second, more complex, solution incorporates the process of creating a plan (in the sense of an intention to execute a plan specification) into the representation of executing plan specifications. We hypothesize that the first solution (i.e., use of 'prescribed by') is adequate for most situations. However, more research is needed to test this hypothesis as well as explore the other solutions presented in this manuscript.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Biomedical Semantics addresses issues of semantic enrichment and semantic processing in the biomedical domain. The scope of the journal covers two main areas:
Infrastructure for biomedical semantics: focusing on semantic resources and repositories, meta-data management and resource description, knowledge representation and semantic frameworks, the Biomedical Semantic Web, and semantic interoperability.
Semantic mining, annotation, and analysis: focusing on approaches and applications of semantic resources; and tools for investigation, reasoning, prediction, and discoveries in biomedicine.