Understanding Terminological Systems II: Experience with Conceptual and Formal Representation of Structure

N. F. de Keizer; A. Abu-Hanna

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634258

Methods of Information in Medicine, Table of Contents

Methods Inf Med 2000; 39(01): 22-29
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634258

Original Article

Schattauer GmbH

Understanding Terminological Systems II: Experience with Conceptual and Formal Representation of Structure

Authors

N. F. de Keizer

¹Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A. Abu-Hanna

¹Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Abstract:

This article describes the application of two popular conceptual and formal representation formalisms, as part of a framework for understanding terminological systems. A precise understanding of the structure of a terminological system is essential to assess existing terminological systems, to recognize patterns in various systems and to build new terminological systems. Our experience with the application of this framework to five well-known terminological systems is described.

Keywords:

Terminological System - Conceptual Representation - Formalization

Full Text

References

REFERENCES
1 Cimino J, Clayton P, Hripcsak G, Johnson S. Knowledge-based approaches to the maintenance of a large controlled medical terminology. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 1994; 1: 35-50.
2 Campbell J, Carpenter P, Sneiderman C. et al. Phase II evaluation of clinical coding schemes: completeness, definitions and clarity. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4: 238-51.
3 Chute C, Cohn S, Campbell J. et al. A framework for comprehensive Health Terminology Systems in the United States: Development guidelines, criteria for selection and public policy implications. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5 (Suppl. 06) 503-10.
4 Cimino J. Coding Systems in Health Care. Yearbook of Medical Informatics. 1995: 71-85.
5 Klimczak J, Hahn A, Sievert M, Petroski G, Hewett J. Comparing clinical vocabularies using coding system fidelity. In: Gardner R. ed. Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. New Orleans: Hanley & Belfus; 1995
6 de Keizer N, Abu-Hanna A, ZwetslootSchonk J. Understanding terminological systems I: terminology and typology. Method Inform Med 2000; 39: 16-21.
7 International Classification of Diseases, manual of the International Statistical Classification of diseases, injuries and causes of death: 9th revision. WHO 1977.
8 International Classification of Diseases, manual of the International Statistical Classification of diseases, injuries and causes of death: 10th revision. WHO 1993.
9 Robinson D, Comp D, Schulz E, Brown P, Price C. Updating the Read Codes: User-interactive Maintenance of a Dynamic Clinical Vocabulary. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4 (Suppl. 06) 465-72.
10 Schulz E, Price C, Brown P. Symbolic Anatomic Knowledge Representation in the Read Codes Version 3: Structure and Application. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4: 38-48.
11 Rothwell D. SNOMED-Based knowledge representation. Method Inform Med 1995; 34: 209-13.
12 Spackman K, Campbell K. Compositional concept representation using SNOMED: towards further convergence of clinical terminologies. Am Med Inform Assoc annual symposium. 1998: 740-4.
13 UMLS Knowledge sources – Documentation. National Library of Medicine; 1997
14 Lindberg D, Humphreys B, Mc Cray A. The Unified Medical Language System. Method Inform Med 1993; 34: 281-91.
15 Rector A, Solomon W, Nowlan W, Rush T, Zanstra P, Claassen W. A Terminology Server for medical language and medical information systems. Method Inform Med 1995; 34: 147-57.
16 Rector A, Bechhofer S, Goble C, Horrocks I, Nowlan W, Solomon W. The Grail concept modelling language for medical terminology. Artif Intell 1997; 9: 139-71.
17 de Keizer N, Abu-Hanna A. A framework for understanding Terminological Systems. Amsterdam: Academic Medical Center. Dep Medical Informatics; 1999
18 Chen P. The Entity-Relationship model; toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans on Database Systems. 1966 n: vol 1:1.
19 Gruber T. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 1993; 5: 199-220.
20 Campbell K, Das A, Musen M. A logical foundation for representation of clinical data. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 1994; 1: 218-32.
21 Donini F, Lenzerini M, Nardi D. et al. Reasoning in Description Logics. In: Brewka G. ed. Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. CLSI publications; 1996: 193-238.
22 Abu-Hanna A, Jansweijer W. Modeling application domain knowledge using explicit conceptualization. IEEE-Expert. 1994
23 Gruber T. Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Hum Comp Stud 1995; 43: 907-28.
24 Heijst G, Falasconi S, Abu-Hanna A, Schreiber A, Stefanelli M. A case study in ontology library construction. Art Intell Med 1995; 7: 227-55.
25 Studer R, Eriksson H, Gennari J, Tu S, Fensel D, Musen M. Ontologies and the Configuration of Problem-solving Methods. In: Gains B, Musen M. eds. 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Banff, Canada: 1996
26 Rector A, Glowinski A, Nowlan W. et al. Medical-concept models and medical records: an approach based on GALEN and PEN&PAD. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1995; 2: 19-35.
27 Read Code File structure version 3.1. NHS Centre for Coding and Classification 1995.
28 Campbell K, Oliver D, Spackman K, Shortliffe K. Representing Thoughts, Words, and Things in the UMLS. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5 (Suppl. 05) 421-31.
29 Moorman P, van Ginneken A, van der Lei J, van Bemmel JH. A model for structured data entry based on explicit descriptional knowledge. Yearbook of Medical Informatics. 1995: 195-204.