Concretizing plan specifications as realizables within the OBO foundry.
Common core ontologies
Failed plans
Information artifact ontology
OBO foundry
Ontology
Ontology for biomedical investigations
Plan specification
Journal
Journal of biomedical semantics
ISSN: 2041-1480
Titre abrégé: J Biomed Semantics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101531992
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Aug 2024
20 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
18
03
2024
accepted:
23
06
2024
medline:
20
8
2024
pubmed:
20
8
2024
entrez:
19
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39160586
doi: 10.1186/s13326-024-00315-0
pii: 10.1186/s13326-024-00315-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Rudnicki R. An overview of the common core ontologies. CUBRC Inc, p. 27, 2019.
Smith B, Ceusters W. Aboutness: Towards foundations for the information artifact ontology, in CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2015, pp. 1–5. [Online]. Available: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1515/regular10.pdf .
Arp R, Smith B, Spear AD. Building ontologies with basic formal ontology. MIT Press; 2015.
Jackson R et al. OBO Foundry in 2021: operationalizing open data principles to evaluate ontologies, Database, vol. 2021, Oct. 2021.
Bandrowski A, et al. The Ontology for Biomedical investigations. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(4):e0154556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154556 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154556
Hitzler P, Krötzsch M. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer, W3C Recommendation, 11 December 2012.
Horridge M. The Manchester OWL Syntax, In OWLed. Vol. 216. 2006.
Otte JN, Beverley J, Ruttenberg A. BFO: Basic formal ontology, Appl. Ontol., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 17–43, 2022.
Overton J et al. Sep., COB: A Core Ontology for Biology and Biomedicine, in The first FAIR Ontology Harmonization and TRUST Data Interoperability Workshop (FOHTI-22) at the ICBO 2022: International Conference on Biomedical Ontology, Ann Arbor, MI, 2022.
Barton A, Vieu L, L. and, Ethier JF. Directing actions, Workshop on Foundational Ontology (FOUST III), Joint Ontology Workshops (JOWO 2019), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2019.