What are Ontologies good for, anyway?

huml message

For newer humlers, (rhymes with hummers and signifies all-wheel drive, fully on-and-off-road-capable humans), please excuse my inveterate informality, but I thought I better indulge while I can because we don't know how long it will be before we have to watch our steps in public, so as not to inadvertently hurt our cause by appearing flippant or cavalier. That's gonna be hard for yours truly. My quiver is full to overflowing with highly sharpened pins dedicated to bursting the bubbles of pomposity, and nose-tweaking has always been one of my favorite activities, right up there alongside hideous punning.

I thought I would prepare you all for the next thing I plan to bring up, since it applies far beyond the HPCDML, which is where I will first be applying it. It is OWL, Ontology Web Language, and it was recently released, December 15, 2003, as a recommendation of W3C, which means it is anointed, or for us commoners, an approved standard. It was also released simultaneously with the latest version of RDF and RDF Schema and here are the URLs:

OWL Overview:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-owl-features-20031215/

OWL Guide:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/

OWL Reference:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/

OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/

OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/

OWL Use Cases and Requirements:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/

and do not include the updated RDF Suite, also released Dec. 15, 2003:

RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/

RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/

RDF Primer:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/

Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/

RDF Semantics
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/

RDF Test Cases

To answer the question in the subject line, ontologies are good for putting all of your term-definition ducks in nice, well-ordered row. Because this represents a suddenly ripened, low-hanging fruit, I will be harvesting it first to organize the standards related to HPCDML and that will make our facilities a one-stop shop for human body-related standards. That, in itself, will facilitate that yards-long list of crosswalks and related projects that James has been diligently working on, and it will also provide a reference to which we can refer in our various individual efforts. Doing the same thing for all of our application areas is going to be my suggestion in our next TC meeting, this coming Wednesday.

I will also be resurrecting that monster I created a couple of years ago, our own ontology, and put it into the OWL format for review and adoption as a standard by the full TC.

I will also be doing the same for an RDF Primary Base Schema for our XML Primary Base Schema. (OWL uses the RDF in its specification and it uses the RDF/XML specification above). I will also be looking at producing sample and reference implementations of these using Protege 2.0 which will be released soon by the Portege WG of Stanford Medical Informatics. Protege 2000 has a stable release which can be used if Protege 2.0 is not ready by the time this is done. (Yes, this is the same group I am hoping we can tap to replace NYAM as a partner in our ongoing Public Healthcare Preparedness Portal.)

I will be sending out my usual meeting reminders with a suggested agenda. Note, for those who care to, we will probably be using the full two hours we have allotted so that we can discuss further grant-seeking projects and, hopefully, a synergy with some of the contacts we made during our December excursions to DC and Philadelphia.