生物信息学本体交换语言评价。

R McEntire, P Karp, N Abernethy, D Benton, G Helt, M DeJongh, R Kent, A Kosky, S Lewis, D Hodnett, E Neumann, F Olken, D Pathak, P Tarczy-Hornoch, L Toldo, T Topaloglou
{"title":"生物信息学本体交换语言评价。","authors":"R McEntire,&nbsp;P Karp,&nbsp;N Abernethy,&nbsp;D Benton,&nbsp;G Helt,&nbsp;M DeJongh,&nbsp;R Kent,&nbsp;A Kosky,&nbsp;S Lewis,&nbsp;D Hodnett,&nbsp;E Neumann,&nbsp;F Olken,&nbsp;D Pathak,&nbsp;P Tarczy-Hornoch,&nbsp;L Toldo,&nbsp;T Topaloglou","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ontologies are specifications of the concepts in a given field, and of the relationships among those concepts. The development of ontologies for molecular-biology information and the sharing of those ontologies within the bioinformatics community are central problems in bioinformatics. If the bioinformatics community is to share ontologies effectively, ontologies must be exchanged in a form that uses standardized syntax and semantics. This paper reports on an effort among the authors to evaluate alternative ontology-exchange languages, and to recommend one or more languages for use within the larger bioinformatics community. The study selected a set of candidate languages, and defined a set of capabilities that the ideal ontology-exchange language should satisfy. The study scored the languages according to the degree to which they satisfied each capability. In addition, the authors performed several ontology-exchange experiments with the two languages that received the highest scores: OML and Ontolingua. The result of those experiments, and the main conclusion of this study, was that the frame-based semantic model of Ontolingua is preferable to the conceptual graph model of OML, but that the XML-based syntax of OML is preferable to the Lisp-based syntax of Ontolingua.</p>","PeriodicalId":79420,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings. International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An evaluation of ontology exchange languages for bioinformatics.\",\"authors\":\"R McEntire,&nbsp;P Karp,&nbsp;N Abernethy,&nbsp;D Benton,&nbsp;G Helt,&nbsp;M DeJongh,&nbsp;R Kent,&nbsp;A Kosky,&nbsp;S Lewis,&nbsp;D Hodnett,&nbsp;E Neumann,&nbsp;F Olken,&nbsp;D Pathak,&nbsp;P Tarczy-Hornoch,&nbsp;L Toldo,&nbsp;T Topaloglou\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ontologies are specifications of the concepts in a given field, and of the relationships among those concepts. The development of ontologies for molecular-biology information and the sharing of those ontologies within the bioinformatics community are central problems in bioinformatics. If the bioinformatics community is to share ontologies effectively, ontologies must be exchanged in a form that uses standardized syntax and semantics. This paper reports on an effort among the authors to evaluate alternative ontology-exchange languages, and to recommend one or more languages for use within the larger bioinformatics community. The study selected a set of candidate languages, and defined a set of capabilities that the ideal ontology-exchange language should satisfy. The study scored the languages according to the degree to which they satisfied each capability. In addition, the authors performed several ontology-exchange experiments with the two languages that received the highest scores: OML and Ontolingua. The result of those experiments, and the main conclusion of this study, was that the frame-based semantic model of Ontolingua is preferable to the conceptual graph model of OML, but that the XML-based syntax of OML is preferable to the Lisp-based syntax of Ontolingua.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings. International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings. International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings. International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本体是给定领域中概念的规范,以及这些概念之间的关系的规范。分子生物学信息本体的发展和生物信息学社区内这些本体的共享是生物信息学的核心问题。如果生物信息学社区要有效地共享本体,本体必须以使用标准化语法和语义的形式进行交换。这篇论文报告了作者之间的一项努力,以评估替代本体交换语言,并推荐一种或多种语言在更大的生物信息学社区中使用。该研究选择了一组候选语言,并定义了理想的本体交换语言应该满足的一组功能。该研究根据语言满足每种能力的程度对语言进行评分。此外,作者还对得分最高的两种语言(OML和Ontolingua)进行了几次本体交换实验。这些实验的结果以及本研究的主要结论是,基于框架的Ontolingua语义模型优于OML的概念图模型,而基于xml的OML语法优于基于lisp的Ontolingua语法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An evaluation of ontology exchange languages for bioinformatics.

Ontologies are specifications of the concepts in a given field, and of the relationships among those concepts. The development of ontologies for molecular-biology information and the sharing of those ontologies within the bioinformatics community are central problems in bioinformatics. If the bioinformatics community is to share ontologies effectively, ontologies must be exchanged in a form that uses standardized syntax and semantics. This paper reports on an effort among the authors to evaluate alternative ontology-exchange languages, and to recommend one or more languages for use within the larger bioinformatics community. The study selected a set of candidate languages, and defined a set of capabilities that the ideal ontology-exchange language should satisfy. The study scored the languages according to the degree to which they satisfied each capability. In addition, the authors performed several ontology-exchange experiments with the two languages that received the highest scores: OML and Ontolingua. The result of those experiments, and the main conclusion of this study, was that the frame-based semantic model of Ontolingua is preferable to the conceptual graph model of OML, but that the XML-based syntax of OML is preferable to the Lisp-based syntax of Ontolingua.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信