Difference between revisions of "The Future of the Foundational Model of Anatomy"

From NCBO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "FMA in OWL meeting agenda, an NCBO Dissemination Event November 12-13, 2009 Organizers: Onard Mejino, Natasha Noy, Alan Ruttenberg Venue: Stanford University (details) Att...")
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
FMA in OWL meeting agenda, an NCBO Dissemination Event
+
'''Date:''' November 12-13, 2009  
November 12-13, 2009  
+
 
Organizers: Onard Mejino, Natasha Noy, Alan Ruttenberg  
+
'''Venue:''' Stanford University
Venue: Stanford University (details)
+
 
Attendees are kindly requested to have read the papers in the reading 
+
'''Organizers:''' Onard Mejino, Natasha Noy, Alan Ruttenberg  
list
+
 
Thursday,  
+
 
November 12            
+
== '''Agenda''' ==
Preliminaries  
+
 
8:30-8:50       Welcome - Mark Musen, Barry Smith, Overview by Chair - 
+
 
Cornelius Rosse  
+
'''Thursday, November 12'''         
8:50-9:00       Logistics - assign scribes, timekeepers, review protocol
+
 
9:00-9:15      Short introductions by participants  
+
'''Preliminaries'''
9:15-9:30      Objectives of the FMA group for the meeting - Jim Brinkley  
+
:8:30      Welcome - Mark Musen, Barry Smith, Cornelius Rosse
9:30-10:30     
+
:9:00 Short introductions by participants  
Coffee Break
+
:9:15 Objectives of the FMA group for the meeting - Jim Brinkley  
10:30-11:00   
+
:9:30 Presentation by FMA group explaining semantics, deficiencies in   
Presentation by FMA group explaining semantics, deficiencies in   
 
 
current representation, questions and targets for OWL (Onard and   
 
current representation, questions and targets for OWL (Onard and   
 
Cornelius)  
 
Cornelius)  
11:00-11:15     Requirements brought in from OBO Foundry/Semweb (Alan)  
+
:11:00    Requirements brought in from OBO Foundry/Semweb (Alan)  
11:15-11:30    The FMA and its ontological commitment(s) (Stefan)  
+
:11:15-11:30    The FMA and its ontological commitment(s) (Stefan)  
Review and discussion of current approaches  
+
 
11:30-12:05     Current approaches to translation - Christine Golbreich  
+
'''Review and discussion of current approaches'''
12:05-12:40     Current approaches to translation - Natasha Noy  
+
:11:30    Current approaches to translation - Christine Golbreich  
12:40-1:30     Lunch  
+
:12:05    Current approaches to translation - Natasha Noy  
1:30-2:10       Current approaches to translation - Chris Mungall  
+
:12:40      Lunch  
2:10-2:50       Introduction to OWL 2 and its features - Uli Sattler  
+
:1:30      Current approaches to translation - Chris Mungall  
2:50-3:15      coffee break
+
:2:10      Introduction to OWL 2 and its features - Uli Sattler  
Details  
+
:2:50 Break
3:15-3:45      Who's using FMA, and how? - Onard Mejino  
+
 
3:45-4:15       Presentation of specific challenges - Onard Mejino  
+
'''Details'''
Discussion sections (continuing friday) addressing issues identified   
+
:3:15   Who's using FMA, and how? - Onard Mejino  
above, focused on cardiovascular system as exemplar. Rotating 
+
:3:45      Presentation of specific challenges - Onard Mejino  
moderators.
+
Discussion sections addressing issues identified   
4:15-5:00       Single/Multiple inheritance and inferred hierarchies  
+
above, focused on cardiovascular system as exemplar  
 +
:4:15      Single/Multiple inheritance and inferred hierarchies  
 
     Problem: Single inheritance hierarchy prohibits multi-supertype   
 
     Problem: Single inheritance hierarchy prohibits multi-supertype   
 
assignments.  
 
assignments.  
Line 46: Line 46:
 
         - question: can OWL automatically infer one of the supertypes   
 
         - question: can OWL automatically infer one of the supertypes   
 
in the inferred hierarchy  
 
in the inferred hierarchy  
Friday,  
+
 
November 13    
+
'''Friday, November 13'''
Discussion sections (continued from thursday) addressing issues 
+
:9:00       
identified above, focused on cardiovascular system as exemplar. 
 
Rotating moderators.
 
9:00-9:45        
 
 
Representation of different contexts using the same relation.  
 
Representation of different contexts using the same relation.  
 
     Examples:  
 
     Examples:  
Line 73: Line 70:
 
create has regional part 1, has regional part 2 and has regional part   
 
create has regional part 1, has regional part 2 and has regional part   
 
3 slots  
 
3 slots  
9:45-10:30             Review of relations and their usage.  
+
:9:45              Review of relations and their usage.  
 
   - Axiomization  
 
   - Axiomization  
 
   - Use of Attributed/reified relationships  
 
   - Use of Attributed/reified relationships  
 
       - Are they necessary?  
 
       - Are they necessary?  
 
       - If necessary how to represent them in OWL  
 
       - If necessary how to represent them in OWL  
10:30-11:00    Coffee
+
:10:30 Break
11:00-11:45   
+
:11:00 Post-Coordination  
Post Coordination (see expanded discussion)
+
:11:45     What can be inferred? Quality assurance - error and consistency checks  
11:45-12:30    What can be inferred? (see expanded discussion)
+
12:30 Lunch
Quality assurance - error and consistency checks  
+
12:30-1:30              Lunch  
+
'''Moving forward'''
Moving forward  
+
:1:30 Review of goals and outlines of possible solutions - Jim Brinkley  
1:30-2:00      Review of goals and outlines of possible solutions - Jim  
+
:2:00 Technical methods to achieve interoperability and orthogonality:  
Brinkley  
+
:2:10 OWL Modularity – Uli Sattler
2:00-3:00     
+
:2:20 Ontology views – Todd Detwiler (10 min)  
Technical methods to achieve interoperability and orthogonality:  
+
:2:30      Cross-references and semantic web linking methods – Alan   
      OWL Modularity – Uli Sattler (10 min)
+
Ruttenberg
      Ontology views – Todd Detwiler (10 min)  
+
 
      Cross-references and semantic web linking methods – Alan   
+
:3:00 Break
Ruttenberg (10 min)
+
:3:30-5:00      Discussion, action items, and future plans – Jim Brinkley, Alan Ruttenberg, Olivier Bodenreider  
      Discussion (30 min)
+
:5:00    Closing remarks Cornelius Rosse, Mark Musen, Barry Smith
3:00-3:30      Coffee
 
3:30-5:00      Discussion, action items, and future plans – Jim Brinkley,  
 
Alan Ruttenberg, Olivier Bodenreider  
 
5:00     
 
Closing remarks Cornelius Rosse, Mark Musen, Barry Smith
 

Revision as of 09:14, 14 February 2012

Date: November 12-13, 2009

Venue: Stanford University

Organizers: Onard Mejino, Natasha Noy, Alan Ruttenberg


Agenda

Thursday, November 12

Preliminaries

8:30 Welcome - Mark Musen, Barry Smith, Cornelius Rosse
9:00 Short introductions by participants
9:15 Objectives of the FMA group for the meeting - Jim Brinkley
9:30 Presentation by FMA group explaining semantics, deficiencies in

current representation, questions and targets for OWL (Onard and Cornelius)

11:00 Requirements brought in from OBO Foundry/Semweb (Alan)
11:15-11:30 The FMA and its ontological commitment(s) (Stefan)

Review and discussion of current approaches

11:30 Current approaches to translation - Christine Golbreich
12:05 Current approaches to translation - Natasha Noy
12:40 Lunch
1:30 Current approaches to translation - Chris Mungall
2:10 Introduction to OWL 2 and its features - Uli Sattler
2:50 Break

Details

3:15 Who's using FMA, and how? - Onard Mejino
3:45 Presentation of specific challenges - Onard Mejino

Discussion sections addressing issues identified above, focused on cardiovascular system as exemplar

4:15 Single/Multiple inheritance and inferred hierarchies
    Problem: Single inheritance hierarchy prohibits multi-supertype   

assignments.

    Examples: 
        - primary incisor tooth can be a subtype of either incisor   

tooth or primary tooth

        - right female breast can be a subtype of female breast or   

right breast

        - proximal phalanx of thumb can be a subtype of either   

phalanx of thumb or proximal phalanx of finger

        - question: can OWL automatically infer one of the supertypes   

in the inferred hierarchy

Friday, November 13

9:00

Representation of different contexts using the same relation.

    Examples: 
        - prostate can be regionally subdivided into different parts   

using different contexts;

            a. classically into anterior lobe, median lobe, right   

lateral lobe, left lateral lobe and posterior lobe

            b. histologically into peripheral zone, central zone,   

transition zone, and peri-urethral zone

            c. surgically into right median lobe, left median lobe,   

right lateral lobe, left lateral lobe, right dorsal lobe and left dorsal lobe

        - heart can subdivided into different contexts: 
            Right side and left side 
            Biatrial part and biventricular part 
            T7, T8, T9, T10 parts 

These are all valid regional parts but the slot has regional part can only accommodate one context, in the case of the FMA it’s the classical anatomical representation and the rest are relegated to the attributed slot attributed part because it would be inappropriate to create has regional part 1, has regional part 2 and has regional part 3 slots

9:45 Review of relations and their usage.
  - Axiomization 
  - Use of Attributed/reified relationships 
     - Are they necessary? 
     - If necessary how to represent them in OWL 
10:30 Break
11:00 Post-Coordination
11:45 What can be inferred? Quality assurance - error and consistency checks

12:30 Lunch

Moving forward

1:30 Review of goals and outlines of possible solutions - Jim Brinkley
2:00 Technical methods to achieve interoperability and orthogonality:
2:10 OWL Modularity – Uli Sattler
2:20 Ontology views – Todd Detwiler (10 min)
2:30 Cross-references and semantic web linking methods – Alan

Ruttenberg

3:00 Break
3:30-5:00 Discussion, action items, and future plans – Jim Brinkley, Alan Ruttenberg, Olivier Bodenreider
5:00 Closing remarks Cornelius Rosse, Mark Musen, Barry Smith