- From: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 10:01:56 -0500
- To: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <2EE9B3DD-34C8-479A-8BCB-27C843371506@DrexelMed.edu>
Hi All, This was recently posted to the UMLS list. Given some of the issues we've been discussing, I thought others might appreciate some of the ideas recounted here by Gary Merrill from GlaxoSmithKline I have my own take on this very very important issue, but I'd rather not editorialize on Gary's points - and give you a chance to process them as he so clearly expressed them. Some familiarity with UMLS structure is helpful (http://umlsinfo.nlm.nih.gov). By the way, a site relevant to our efforts is the Open Clinical site (KM for Medical Care - http://www.openclinical.org/medTermUmls.html). Cheers, Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: gary.h.merrill@GSK.COM > Date: January 19, 2007 10:52:11 AM EST > To: UMLSUSERS-L@LIST.NIH.GOV > Subject: Re: MRHIER and AUIs > Reply-To: gary.h.merrill@GSK.COM > > William: > > I think that was a very good non-techincal summary of some issues > in the > Metathesaurus that can be difficult and confusing. The nature and > role of > AUIs (and their relationships to one another and to the CUIs that they > "realize") can require substantial thought. > > I am always a little concerned when I see statements such as "In > an ideal > harmonious world, NLM and all sources would agree, and Meta would > become > a single unified principled > ontology." I do not in fact think that this is necessarily true > (under > some reasonable constraints it is in fact provably false), and > definitely > do not think it should be taken as a disideratum. Perhaps you do not > either, but I wanted to take this opportunity to say that, > particularly in > the context of evolving empirical scientific theories, we should not > expect (and not necessarily even strive for) such a unified ontology. > (There are, of course, those who would disagree.) The history of > science > and the history of philosphy has shown the folly of this, and I would > argue that while striving for a certain "convergence" is desireable, > striving for the one true theory/ontology is not. That's something > of a > digression, but I take the strength of UMLS to lie in providing a > way of > "communicating between" and using mulitple disparate (at times > mutually > inconsistent) world views without imposing a strict ueber-ontology. > Again, > there are those who tend to find the lack of the ueber-ontology to > leave > them feeling insecure and adrift in metaphysical ream of uncertainty. > > As I expressed to Chris in separate communication, from my > perspective (as > a very application-oriented user), UMLS provides a usually adequate > representation of "concepts" (via CUIs), and terms/words/linguistic > items > (via SUIs, LUIs, etc.). What it does not provide a particularly crisp > representation of at the moment is "things" -- e.g., diseases > rather than > disease names or disease concepts (that is, the extensional > correlate of > the (intensional) concept/CUI). AUIs are enlisted to support this > to some > degree, but they are somewhat too closely allied to linguistic items > (terms) to carry the genuine semantic weight of > "things" (extensions). At > best, one ends up using sets of AUIs as equivalence classes to > represent > the thing to which each of the AUIs "refers" (though "refer" here > is, I > think, a bit misleading). So in terms of a classic thing/word/concept > semantic hierarchy, my feeling is that UMLS does a good job of the > word/concept part, but the thing part is left a bit "mushy". However, > there is room for substantial debate here, and many of the issues are > unclear. > > Largely this is a consequence of construing UMLS as a -- surprise -- > meta*thesaurus* rather than a meta*ontology*, and focusing on meaning > relations (e.g., synonomy) rather than more fundamental semantic > relations > (e.g., denotation and extension). I do have some ideas of how > this might > be addressed, but won't even mention them here -- partly because > working > them out requires substantial thought and care, and partly because > I'm not > altogether sure of what the benefit would be (to most UMLS users) to > retrofitting such an approach to UMLS. > > ------------------------------ > Gary H. Merrill, Director > Semantic Technologies Group > Statistical and Quantitative Sciences > GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development > Research Triangle Park, NC > 919.483.8456 Bill Bug Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics www.neuroterrain.org Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy Drexel University College of Medicine 2900 Queen Lane Philadelphia, PA 19129 215 991 8430 (ph) 610 457 0443 (mobile) 215 843 9367 (fax) Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu
Received on Saturday, 20 January 2007 15:02:12 UTC