Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks

Journal of Biomedical Semantics

Neil Yorke-Smith¹  William Webb²  Maryann E Martone⁵  Allison Gong³  Andrew Goldenkranz⁴  Daniel Elenius⁶  Vinay K Chaudhri⁶ 

[1] University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;Foothill Community College, Los Altos Hills, CA, USA;Cabrillo College, Aptos, CA, USA;Monta Vista High School, Cupertino, CA, USA;University of California, San Diego, CA, USA;SRI International, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA

关键词: Semantic infrastructure;    Question answering;    Reasoning;    Knowledge representation;    Textbook knowledge;    Ontology;   

Others  :  1133355
DOI  :  10.1186/2041-1480-5-51

 received in 2014-05-23, accepted in 2014-11-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Using knowledge representation for biomedical projects is now commonplace. In previous work, we represented the knowledge found in a college-level biology textbook in a fashion useful for answering questions. We showed that embedding the knowledge representation and question-answering abilities in an electronic textbook helped to engage student interest and improve learning. A natural question that arises from this success, and this paper’s primary focus, is whether a similar approach is applicable across a range of life science textbooks. To answer that question, we considered four different textbooks, ranging from a below-introductory college biology text to an advanced, graduate-level neuroscience textbook. For these textbooks, we investigated the following questions: (1) To what extent is knowledge shared between the different textbooks? (2) To what extent can the same upper ontology be used to represent the knowledge found in different textbooks? (3) To what extent can the questions of interest for a range of textbooks be answered by using the same reasoning mechanisms?

Results

Our existing modeling and reasoning methods apply especially well both to a textbook that is comparable in level to the text studied in our previous work (i.e., an introductory-level text) and to a textbook at a lower level, suggesting potential for a high degree of portability. Even for the overlapping knowledge found across the textbooks, the level of detail covered in each textbook was different, which requires that the representations must be customized for each textbook. We also found that for advanced textbooks, representing models and scientific reasoning processes was particularly important.

Conclusions

With some additional work, our representation methodology would be applicable to a range of textbooks. The requirements for knowledge representation are common across textbooks, suggesting that a shared semantic infrastructure for the life sciences is feasible. Because our representation overlaps heavily with those already being used for biomedical ontologies, this work suggests a natural pathway to include such representations as part of the life sciences curriculum at different grade levels.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Chaudhri et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Arp R, Smith B: Ontologies of cellular networks. Sci Signal 2008, 1:mr2.
• [2]Karp PD: Pathway databases: a case study in computational symbolic theories. Science 2001, 293:2040-2044.
• [3]Renear AH, Palmer CL: Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science 2009, 325:828-832.
• [4]Jonquet C, LePendu P, Falconer S, Coulet A, Noy NF, Musen MA, Shah NH: NCBO resource index: ontology-based search and mining of biomedical resources. Web Semant 2009, 3:316-324.
• [5]Xosé M, Fernández-Suárez , Rigden DJ, Galperin MJ: The 2014 nucleic acids research database issue and an updated NAR online molecular biology database collection. Nucl Acids Res 2014, 42(D1):D1-D6.
• [6]Chaudhri VK, Cheng B, Overholtzer A, Roschelle J, Spaulding A, Clark P, Greaves M, Gunning D: Inquire biology: a textbook that answers questions. AI Magazine 2013, 34(3):55-72.
• [7]Smith B, Ashburner M, Rosse C, Bard J, Bug W, Ceusters W, Goldberg LJ, Eilbeck K, Ireland A, Mungall CJ, Leontis N, Rocca-Serra P, Ruttenberg A, Sansone S-A, Scheuermann RH, Shah N, Whetzel PL, Lewis S, The OBI Consortium: The OBO foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nat Biotechnol 2007, 25(11):1251-1255.
• [8]Dumontier M, Baker C, Baran J, Callahan A, Chepelev L, Cruz-Toledo J, Del Rio NR, Duck G, Furlong LI, Keath N, Klassen D, McCusker JP, Queralt-Rosinach N, Samwald M, Villanueva-Rosales N, Wilkinson MD, Hoehndorf R: The semantic science integrated ontology (SIO) for biomedical research and knowledge discovery. J Biomed Semant 2014, 5:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Reece J, Urry L, Cain M, Wasserman S, Minorsky P, Jackson R: Campbell Biology. 9th edition. Boston: Benjamin Cummings; 2011.
• [10]Friedland N, Allen P, Mathews G, Whitbrock M, Baxter D, Curtis J, Shepard B, Miraglia P, Angele J, Staab S, Moench E, Opperman H, Wenke D, Israel D, Chaudhri V, Porter B, Barker K, Fan J, Chaw SY, Yeh P, Tecuci D, Clark P: Project Halo: towards a Digital Aristotle. AI Magazine 2004, 25(4):29-47.
• [11]Gunning D, Chaudhri VK, Clark P, Barker K, Chaw SY, Greaves M, Grosof B, Leung A, McDonald D, Mishra S, Pacheco J, Porter B, Spaulding A, Tecuci D, Tien J: Project Halo update—progress toward Digital Aristotle. AI Magazine 2010, 31(3):33-58.
• [12]Chaudhri VK, Wessel MA, Heymans S: KB Bio 101: a challenge for OWL reasoners. In In The OWL Reasoner Evaluation Workshop . Aachen, Germany: CEUR workshop Proceedings; 2013. Vol. 1015, No. 0074-1015-0, pp. 114-120, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1015/ webcite
• [13]Chaudhri VK, Elenius D, Hinojoza S, Wessel M: KB Bio 101: content and challenges. In Proceedings of International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press; 2014:415-420.
• [14]Clark P, Porter B: KM–The Knowledge Machine: Users Manual. Technical report, AI Lab, Univ Texas at Austin. 1999. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mfkb/km.html webcite
• [15]Vardi MY: Why is modal logic so robustly decidable? Descriptive Complex Finite Models 1996, 31:149-184.
• [16]Hastings J, Dumontier M, Hull D, Horridge M, Steinbeck C, Sattler U, Stevens R, Hörne T, Britz : Representing chemicals using OWL, description graphs and rules. In Proceedings of OWL: Experiences and Directions. Aachen, Germany: CEUR Workshop Proceedings; 2010. Vol 604, No. 0074-614-8, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-614/ webcite
• [17]Magka D, Krötzsch M, Horrocks I: Computing stable models for nonmonotonic existential rules. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence . Palo Alto, CA, USA: AAAI Press; 2013:1031-1038.
• [18]Calὶ A, Gottlob G, Lukasiewicz T: Datalog ±. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Database Theory. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2009:14-30.
• [19]Eiter T, Ṥimkus M: FDNC: decidable nonmonotonic disjunctive logic programs with function symbols. ACM Trans Comput Logic 2010, 11(2):14.
• [20]Alviano M, Faber W, Leone N: Disjunctive ASP with functions: decidable queries and effective computation. Theor Pract Logic Programming 2010, 10(4–6):497-512.
• [21]Chang CL, Lee RCT: Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. NY, USA: Academic Press; 1973. http://store.elsevier.com/product.jsp?isbn=9780121703509 webcite
• [22]Chaudhri VK, Heymans S, Wessel M, Tran SC: Object-oriented knowledge bases in logic programming. In Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, Vol. 13, No. 4-5, Online Supplement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2013. http://journals.cambridge.org/downloadsup.php?file=/tlp2013022.pdf webcite
• [23]Chaudhri VK, Tran SC: Specifying and reasoning with under-specified knowledge base. In International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press; 2012:424-434.
• [24]Chaudhri VK, Heymans S, Wessel M, Tran SC: Query answering in object oriented knowledge bases in logic programming: description and challenge for ASP. In Workshop on ASP and Other Computing Paradigms. Ithaca, NY: Computing Research Repository, Cornell University; 2013:81-96. http://arxiv.org/html/1312.7422 webcite
• [25]Chaudhri VK, Heymans S, Overholtzer A, Spaulding A, Wessel M: Large-scale analogical reasoning. In The Proceedings of 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Palo Alto, CA, USA: AAAI Press; 2014.
• [26]Barker K, Porter B, Clark P: A library of generic concepts for composing knowledge bases. In First International Conference on Knowledge Capture. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2001.
• [27]Miller GA: WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun ACM 1995, 38(11):39-41.
• [28]Summers D: Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. UK: Pearson Longman, Longman Group; 1987.
• [29]Lloyd SM: Roget’s Thesaurus . NY, USA: Prentice Hall; 1982.
• [30]Barker K, Copeck T, Delisle S, Szpakowicz S: Systematic construction of a versatile case system. J Nat Lang Eng 1997, 3:279-315.
• [31]Chaudhri VK, Dinesh N, Inclezan D: Creating a knowledge base to enable explanation, reasoning, and dialog: three lessons. 2013, 3:183-200. http://cogsys.org/journal/volume-3 webcite
• [32]Chaudhri VK, Dinesh N, Heller C: Conceptual models of structure and function. Second Ann Conf Adv Cogn Syst 2013, 255-272. http://www.cogsys.org/proceedings/2013 webcite
• [33]Smith B, Ceusters W, Klagges B, Köhler J, Kumar A, Lomax J, Mungall C, Neuhaus F, Rector AL, Rosse C: Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biol 2005, 6(5):R46. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Motik B, Cuenca Grau B, Horrocks I, Sattler U: Representing ontologies using description logics, description graphs, and rules. Artif Intell 2009, 173(14):1275-1309.
• [35]Ferrucci D, Brown E, Chu-Carroll J, Fan J, Gondek D, Kalyanpur AA, Lally A, Murdock JW, Nyberg E, Prager J, Schlaefer N, Welty C: Building Watson: an overview of the DeepQA project. AI Magazine 2010, 31(3):59-79.
• [36]Mason K, Losos J, Singer S: Biology. 9th edition. New York: McGraw Hill; 2011.
• [37]Miller K, Levine J: Biology. 2nd edition. Boston: Pearson; 2010.
• [38]Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P: Molecular Biology of the Cell. 5th edition. New York: Garland Science, Taylor and Francis Group; 2008.
• [39]Kandel ER, Schwartz JH: Jessel TM (editors): Principles of Neural Science . 4th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2000.
• [40]Chaudhri VK, Dinesh N: AURA Knowledge Engineering Manual. SRI Technical Report. http://www.ai.sri.com/pub_list/1978 webcite
• [41]Röhl J, Jansen L: Representing dispositions. J Biomed Semant 2011, 2(S-4):S4.
• [42]Clark P, Chaw SY, Barker K, Chaudhri V, Harrison P, Fan J, John B, Porter B, Spaulding A, Thompson J, Yeh PZ: Capturing and answering questions posed to a knowledge-based system. In Proceedings of The Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP). NY, USA: ACM New York; 2007. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1298419 webcite
• [43]Chaudhri VK, Dinesh N, Heymans S: Representing roles in a biology textbook. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Conceptual Modeling in Information Systems. Aachen, Germany: CEUR Workshop Proceedings; 2014. Vol. 1301, No. 0074-1301-3, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1301 webcite
• [44]Loebe F, Chaudhri VK: Modeling of continuity and change in biology. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Conceptual Modeling in Information Systems. Aachen, Germany: CEUR Workshop Proceedings; 2014. Vol. 1301, No. 0074-1301-3
• [45]Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA, Hill DP, Issel-Tarver L, Kasarskis A, Lewis S, Matese JC, Richardson JE, Ringwald M, Rubin GM, Sherlock G: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 2000, 25(1):25-29.
• [46]Leach SM, Tipney H, Feng W, William J, Baumgartner A, Kaliswal P, Schuyler RP, Williams T, Spritz RA, Hunter L: Biomedical discovery acceleration, with applications to craniofacial development. PLoS Comput Biol 2009, 5(3):1-19.
• [47]Wing JM: Computational thinking. Comm ACM 2006, 49:33-35.