Knowledge Representation and Ontologies

  • Fung K
  • Bodenreider O
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Ontologies have become important tools in biomedicine, supporting critical aspects of both health care and biomedical research, including clinical research. Some even see ontologies as integral to science. Unlike terminologies (focusing on naming) and classifi cation systems (developed for partitioning a domain), ontologies defi ne the types of entities that exist, as well as their interrelations. And while knowledge bases generally integrate both defi nitional and assertional knowledge, ontologies focus on what is always true of entities, i.e., defi nitional knowledge. In practice, however, there is no sharp distinction between these kinds of artifacts, and ontology has become a generic name for a variety of knowledge sources with important differences in their degree of formality, coverage, richness, and computability. In this chapter, we focus on those ontologies of particular relevance to clinical research. After a brief introduction to ontology development and knowledge representation, we present the characteristics of some of these ontologies. We then show how ontologies are integrated in and made accessible through knowledge repositories and illustrate their role in clinical research.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fung, K. W., & Bodenreider, O. (2012). Knowledge Representation and Ontologies (pp. 255–275). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-448-5_14

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free