Author:
Duncan William D.,Diller Matthew,Dooley Damion,Hogan William R.,Beverley John
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Within the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry, many ontologies represent the execution of a plan specification as a process in which a realizable entity that concretizes the plan specification, a “realizable concretization” (RC), is realized. This representation, which we call the “RC-account”, provides a straightforward way to relate a plan specification to the entity that bears the realizable concretization and the process that realizes the realizable concretization. However, the adequacy of the RC-account has not been evaluated in the scientific literature. In this manuscript, we provide this evaluation and, thereby, give ontology developers sound reasons to use or not use the RC-account pattern.
Results
Analysis of the RC-account reveals that it is not adequate for representing failed plans. If the realizable concretization is flawed in some way, it is unclear what (if any) relation holds between the realizable entity and the plan specification. If the execution (i.e., realization) of the realizable concretization fails to carry out the actions given in the plan specification, it is unclear under the RC-account how to directly relate the failed execution to the entity carrying out the instructions given in the plan specification. These issues are exacerbated in the presence of changing plans.
Conclusions
We propose two solutions for representing failed plans. The first uses the Common Core Ontologies ‘prescribed by’ relation to connect a plan specification to the entity or process that utilizes the plan specification as a guide. The second, more complex, solution incorporates the process of creating a plan (in the sense of an intention to execute a plan specification) into the representation of executing plan specifications. We hypothesize that the first solution (i.e., use of ‘prescribed by’) is adequate for most situations. However, more research is needed to test this hypothesis as well as explore the other solutions presented in this manuscript.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference10 articles.
1. Rudnicki R. An overview of the common core ontologies. CUBRC Inc, p. 27, 2019.
2. Smith B, Ceusters W. Aboutness: Towards foundations for the information artifact ontology, in CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2015, pp. 1–5. [Online]. Available: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1515/regular10.pdf.
3. Arp R, Smith B, Spear AD. Building ontologies with basic formal ontology. MIT Press; 2015.
4. Jackson R et al. OBO Foundry in 2021: operationalizing open data principles to evaluate ontologies, Database, vol. 2021, Oct. 2021.
5. Bandrowski A, et al. The Ontology for Biomedical investigations. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(4):e0154556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154556.