|
|
MEDED
534 , Autumn 2004 |
| Week 2, Class 2: Knowledge representation in anatomy Assignment A. Questions and ponderables: Think about the following questions and points and contribute
your ideas to the discussion during class. What is the meaning of the terms "symbolic" and "spatial" in reference to the representation of anatomical information? What is right and what is wrong with these terms? What is the difference between "anatomical data" and "anatomical knowledge"? What is the relationship of "anatomical information" to each of these concepts? What is a terminology? What is an ontology? Can you think of other terms that refer to structured lists of terms? What is the difference between a hierarchy and a taxonomy? What is the difference between a taxonomy and an ontology? What is the difference between a term and a concept? How would you draw the boundary between macroscopic and microscopic anatomy? How would you decide whether to include a concept in an ontology for anatomy (biological structure) or in an ontology for physiology (biological function)? What is the pericardium? What criteria would you use for deciding whether or not the pericardium should be represented as a part of the heart? How would such a decision affect the computerized patient record? What is your definition of a reference ontology or reference terminology? What are the alternatives to reference ontologies or reference terminologies? Argue for and against establishing reference ontologies or reference terminologies. What criteria would a terminology or ontology have to satisfy in order to be adopted as a STANDARD? Apart from terms, what would be desirable to standardize in computable information resources? What are the arguments for and against establishing standards in knowledge representation? B. Suggested reading: You may select any paper from the SIG publication page. You may find the following articles particularly informative: Provides a general
introduction to the problem of terminologies. A
current report on the status of the FMA, which provides a general background
and illustrates it with specific examples. This is probably the most useful
reference for the class. A technically oriented paper
to illustrate how the complexities
of anatomical knowledge challenge available authoring systems of computable
knowledge sources.
Smith, B. and Rosse,
C. (2004) Instantiation, Subsumption, and Part: the Three Foundational
Relations of Biomedical Ontology. MedInfo 2004. In Press.
|
|
|
Last
Updated: |
Contact the instructor at: brinkley@u.washington.edu
|