Comparing two approaches for aligning representations of anatomy

OBJECTIVE To analyze the comparison, through their results, of two distinct approaches applied to aligning two representations of anatomy. MATERIALS Both approaches use a combination of lexical and structural techniques. In addition, the first approach takes advantage of domain knowledge, while the second approach treats alignment as a special case of schema matching. The same versions of FMA and GALEN were aligned by each approach. Two thousand one hundred and ninety-nine concept matches were obtained by both approaches. METHODS AND RESULTS For matches identified by one approach only (337 and 336, respectively), we analyzed the reasons that caused the other approach to fail. CONCLUSIONS The first approach could be improved by addressing partial lexical matches and identifying matches based solely on structural similarity. The second approach may be improved by taking into account synonyms in FMA and identifying semantic mismatches. However, only 33% of the possible one-to-one matches among anatomical concepts were identified by the two approaches together. New directions need to be explored in order to handle more complex matches.

[1]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching , 2001, The VLDB Journal.

[2]  Martin L. Kersten,et al.  A Graph-Oriented Model for Articulation of Ontology Interdependencies , 1999, EDBT.

[3]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Representing and reasoning about mappings between domain models , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[4]  Douglas B. Lenat,et al.  Mapping Ontologies into Cyc , 2002 .

[5]  Barry Smith,et al.  Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium , 2005 .

[6]  Gerd Stumme,et al.  FCA-MERGE: Bottom-Up Merging of Ontologies , 2001, IJCAI.

[7]  José L. V. Mejino,et al.  A reference ontology for biomedical informatics: the Foundational Model of Anatomy , 2003, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[8]  Olivier Bodenreider,et al.  Aligning Representations of Anatomy using Lexical and Structural Methods , 2003, AMIA.

[9]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[10]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching , 2002, Proceedings 18th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[11]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Using C-OWL for the alignment and merging of medical ontologies , 2004, KR-MED.

[12]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  GALEN's model of parts and wholes: experience and comparisons , 2000, AMIA.

[13]  José L. V. Mejino,et al.  Pushing the envelope: challenges in a frame-based representation of human anatomy , 2004, Data Knowl. Eng..

[14]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Generic Schema Matching with Cupid , 2001, VLDB.

[15]  Philip A. Bernstein,et al.  Challenges in Precisely Aligning Models of Human Anatomy Using Generic Schema Matching , 2004, MedInfo.

[16]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  COMA - A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches , 2002, VLDB.

[17]  Jérôme Euzenat,et al.  An API for Ontology Alignment , 2004, SEMWEB.

[18]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Learning to match ontologies on the Semantic Web , 2003, The VLDB Journal.

[19]  J E Rogers,et al.  Using the GRAIL language for classification management. , 1997, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[20]  Olivier Bodenreider,et al.  Comparing Associative Relationships among Equivalent Concepts across Ontologies , 2004, MedInfo.

[21]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  The Chimaera Ontology Environment , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[22]  Philip A. Bernstein,et al.  Adapting a generic match algorithm to align ontologies of human anatomy , 2004, Proceedings. 20th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[23]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  The GRAIL concept modelling language for medical terminology , 1997, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[24]  Gerd Stumme,et al.  FCA-merge: a bottom-up approach for merging ontologies , 2001 .