W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > May 2011

Re: drug-drug interaction scientific discourse

From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 11:44:17 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikDtM3f5F1Sjg8=WsKg9TvcwbcHkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: rdb20@pitt.edu
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Gardner, Gregory" <gardnerga@upmc.edu>
Prof Boyce,

Weighing evidence using executable English may be of interest.

Here are some simple examples:




and some descriptions:


www.reengineeringllc.com/ibldrugdbdemo1.htm  (video with audio)

Apologies if you have seen this before, and thanks for comments.

                                                    -- Adrian

Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL
and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

Adrian Walker

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Richard Boyce <rdb20@pitt.edu> wrote:

> Hi All,
> We are working on creating a linked-data version of an academic drug-drug
> interaction (DDIs) knowledge-base called the DIKB that contains assertions
> about DDIs observed in clinical studies as well as assertions about drug
> mechanisms that can be used to infer DDIs. DIKB assertions are linked to
> supporting and refuting evidence (see <
> http://www.pitt.edu/~rdb20/data/DIKB-lightning-summary-05262010.pdf>).
> Additionally, each use of evidence is linked to "evidence-use assumptions";
> other DIKB assertions that represent assumptions made by the knowledge base
> curator when inferring a drug mechanism claim from an evidence item. We have
> questions about how to best represent this assertion/evidence structure as
> scientific discourse. We have been looking at the SWAN discourse ontology
> and it seems possible to use its elements but have ran into some issues that
> we are unsure about. For example, we are not sure if we should map DIKB
> assertions to research statements qualified as hypotheses or claims and it
> is not clear to us if we should represent DIKB evidence-use assumptions
> using SWAN elements. Would anyone have any thoughts based on their
> experience representing discourse? Also, has anybody used elements from the
> OBO Information Artifact Ontology w/ SWAN to represent scientific discourse?
> We also are interested in representing DDIs that are computationally
> inferred from assertions in the DIKB but are not sure if there is an
> ontology for algorithmic inferences. Would anyone have a suggestion?
> Thanks in advance,
> -Rich
> --
> Richard Boyce, PhD
> Assistant Professor of Biomedical Informatics and
> Intelligent Systems
> Scholar, Comparative Effectiveness Research Program
> University of Pittsburgh
> rdb20@pitt.edu
> 412-648-6768
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 15:44:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:46 UTC