Concretizing plan specifications as realizables within the OBO foundry.

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Journal of Biomedical Semantics Pub Date : 2024-08-20 DOI:10.1186/s13326-024-00315-0
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在 OBO 铸造厂内将计划规格具体化为可实现的目标。
背景在开放生物和生物医学本体论(OBO)基金会中,许多本体论都将计划规范的执行表述为一个过程,在这个过程中,将计划规范具体化的可实现实体--"可实现具体化"(RC)--得以实现。我们把这种表示法称为 "RC-账户",它提供了一种直截了当的方法,将计划规范与承担可实现具体化的实体和实现可实现具体化的过程联系起来。然而,科学文献尚未对 RC-账户的适当性进行评估。在本手稿中,我们提供了这一评估,从而为本体开发者提供了使用或不使用 RC-账户模式的充分理由:结果:对 RC-账户的分析表明,它不足以表示失败的计划。如果可实现的具体化在某些方面存在缺陷,那么就不清楚可实现的实体与计划规范之间是什么关系(如果有关系的话)。如果可实现具体化的执行(即实现)未能执行计划说明中给出的操作,那么在 RC 账户下,如何将失败的执行与执行计划说明中给出的指令的实体直接联系起来就不清楚了。在计划不断变化的情况下,这些问题会更加严重:我们提出了两种表示失败计划的解决方案。第一种方案使用通用核心本体的 "由......规定 "关系,将计划规范与使用计划规范作为指导的实体或流程联系起来。第二种解决方案更为复杂,它将创建计划的过程(从执行计划规范的意图的意义上来说)纳入到执行计划规范的表示中。我们假设第一种解决方案(即使用 "由......规定")足以应对大多数情况。不过,我们还需要更多的研究来验证这一假设,并探索本手稿中提出的其他解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Biomedical Semantics
Journal of Biomedical Semantics MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
28
审稿时长
30 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Dynamic Retrieval Augmented Generation of Ontologies using Artificial Intelligence (DRAGON-AI). MeSH2Matrix: combining MeSH keywords and machine learning for biomedical relation classification based on PubMed. Annotation of epilepsy clinic letters for natural language processing An extensible and unifying approach to retrospective clinical data modeling: the BrainTeaser Ontology. Concretizing plan specifications as realizables within the OBO foundry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1