A method to map heterogeneity between near but non-equivalent semantic attributes in multiple health data registries

Health Informatics Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 39-57

  Schuurman, Nadine ^a   Leszczynski, Agnieszka ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ontology; OWL; Semantic data integration; Semantic heterogeneity; Semantic Web

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CANADA; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DATA BASE; FETUS DEATH; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MARKUP LANGUAGE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; REGISTER; SEMANTICS; STILLBIRTH;

HUMANS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION SERVICES; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; PERINATAL CARE; REGISTRIES; SEMANTICS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 39049084488     PISSN: 14604582     EISSN: 17412811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1460458207086333     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Barnard D.K., Hu W. The Populath Health Approach: Health GIS as a bridge from theory to practice. International Journal of Health Geographics 2005; 4; 9 pp.
2. Ricketts T.C. Geographic information systems and public health. Annual Review of Public Health 2003; 24 (1); 1-6.
3. Solbring H.R. Metadata and the reintegration of clinical knowledge: ISO 11179. MD Computing 2000; 17; 25-8.
4. Moynihan R., Cassels A. Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All into Patients. Vancouver: Greystone, 2005.
5. Bishr Y. Semantic aspects of interoperable GIS. PhD thesis. Enschede, The Netherlands: International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC), 1997.
6. Bishr Y. Overcoming the semantic and other barriers to GIS interoperability. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 1998; 12 (4); 299-314.
7. Agarwal P. Ontological considerations in GIScience. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2005; 19 (5); 501-36.
8. Peng Z-R. A proposed framework for feature-level geospatial data sharing: A case study for transportation network data. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2005; 19 (4); 459-81.
9. Peng Z-R., Zhang C. The roles of geography markup language (GML), scalable vector graphics (SVG), and Web feature service (WFS) specification in the development of Internet geographic information systems (GIS). Journal of Geographical Systems 2004; 6 (2); 95-116.
10. Tsou M-H. An operational metadata framework for searching, indexing, and retrieving distributed geographic information services on the Internet. In Egenhofer M J, Mark D M eds GIScience 2002, Boulder, CO, 313-32. New York: Springer, 2002.
11. Schuurman N. Flexible standardization: Making interoperability accessible to agencies with limited resources. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 2002; 29 (4); 343-53.
12. Schuurman N., Leszczynski A. Ontology-based metadata. Transactions in GIS 2006; 10 (5); 709-26.
13. Nogueras-Iso J., Zarazaga-Soria F.J., Lacasta J., Bejar R., Muro-Medrano P.R. Metadata standard interoperability: Application in the geographic information domain. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 2004; 28 (6); 611-34.
14. Arzt N.H. The new alphabet soup: Models of data integration. Part 1. Journal of Healthcare Information Management 2005; 20 (1); 15-18.
15. Wangler B., Ahlfeldt R-M., Perjons E. Process oriented information systems architectures in healthcare. Health Informatics Journal 2003; 9 (4); 253-65.
16. Gardner S.P. Ontologies and semantic data integration. Drug Discovery Today 2005; 10 (14); 1001-7.
17. Arzt N.H. The new alphabet soup: Models of data integration. Part 2. Journal of Healthcare Information Management 2005; 20 (2); 9-11.
18. Wang K., Tarczy-Hornoch P., Shaker R., Mork P., Brinkley J. BioMediator data integration: Beyond genomics to neuroscience data. AMIA Annual Symposium 2005 779-83. AMIA, 2005.
19. Abel D.J., Ooi B.C., Tan K-L., Tan S.H. Towards integrated geographical information processing. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 1998; 12 (4); 353-71.
20. Kuhn W. Modelling the semantics of geographic categories through conceptual integration. In Egenhofer M J, Mark D M eds GIScience 2002 Boulder, CO, 108-18. New York: Springer, 2002.
21. Devogele T., Parent C., Spaccapietra S. On spatial database integration. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 1998; 12 (4); 335-52.
22. Sheth A.P. Changing focus on interoperability in information systems: from system, syntax, structure to semantics. In Goodchild M F, Egenhofer M J, Fegeas R, Kottman C eds Interoperating Geographic Information Systems 5-29. Boston: Kluwer, 1999.
23. Kashyap V., Sheth A.P. Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects: A context-based approach. VLDB Journal 1996; 5 (4); 276-304.
24. Stock K., Pullar D. Identifying semantically similar elements in heterogeneous spatial databases using predicate logic expressions. In Vckovski A, Brassel K E, Schek H-J eds INTEROP'99 231-52. Zurich: Springer, 1999.
25. Agarwal P. Contested nature of place: Knowledge mapping for resolving ontological distinctions between geographical objects. In Egenhofer M J, Freska C, Miller H J eds GIScience 2004 Adelphi, MD, 1-21. New York: Springer, 2004.
26. Bittner T., Edwards G. Towards an ontology for geomatics. Geomatica 2001; 55 (4); 475-90.
27. Duckman M., Worboys M. An algebraic approach to automated geospatial information fusion. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2005; 19 (5); 537-57.
28. Fabrikant S.I., Buttenfield B. Formalizing semantic spaces for information access. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2001; 91 (3); 563-80.
29. Frank A.U. Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2001; 15 (7); 667-78.
30. Kuhn W. Geospatial semantics: Why, of what, and how? Journal of Data Semantics III 2005; LNCS 3534; 1-24.
31. Rodriguez M.A., Egenhofer M.J. Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 2003; 15 (2); 442-56.
32. Smith B., Mark D.M. Geographical categories: An ontological investigation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2001; 15 (7); 591-612.
33. Stoimenov L., Djordjevic-Kajan S. An architecture for interoperable GIS use in a local community environment. Computers & Geosciences 2005; 31 (2); 211-20.
34. Wilson N. The beginnings of logical semantics framework for the integration of thematic map data. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2004; 18 (4); 389-415.
35. Brodeur J., Bedard Y., Edwards G., Moulin B. Revisiting the concept of geospatial data interoperability within the scope of human communication processes. Transactions in GIS 2003; 7 (2); 243-65.
36. Cruz I.F., Sunna W., Chaudhry A. Semi-automatic ontology alignment for geospatial data integration. In Egenhofer M J, Freska C, Miller H J eds GIScience 2004 Adelphi, MD, 55-61. New York: Springer, 2004.
37. Fonseca F., Davis C., Camara G. Bridging ontologies and conceptual schemas in geographic information integration. GeoInformatica 2003; 7 (4); 355-78.
38. Kokla M., Kavouras M. Semantic information in geo-ontologies: extraction, comparison, and reconciliation. Journal on Data Semantics III 2005; LNCS 3353; 125-42.
39. Winter S., Nittel S. Formal information modelling for standardisation in the spatial domain. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2003; 17 (8); 721-41.
40. Blake J.A., Bult C.J. Beyond the data deluge: Data integration and bio-ontologies. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2006; 39 (3); 314-20.
41. Ahlqvist O. A parametrized representation of uncertain conceptual spaces. Transactions in GIS 2004; 8 (4); 493-514.
42. Ahlqvist O. Using uncertain conceptual spaces to translate between land cover categories. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2005; 19 (7); 831-57.
43. Ahlqvist O. Using semantic similarity metrics to uncover category and land cover change. In Rodriguez M A, Cruz I F, Egenhofer M J, Levashkin S eds GeoSpatial Semantics (GeoS 2005) Mexico City, 107-19. Berlin: Springer, 2005.
44. Schuurman N. Why formalization matters: Critical GIS and ontology research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2006; 96 (4); 726-39.
45. Lord P.W., Stevens R.D., Brass A., Goble C.A. Semantic similarity measures as tools for exploring the gene ontology. Pacific Symposium Biocomputing, 3-7 January 2003, Lihue, Hawaii 601-12.
46. Choi N., Song I-Y., Hyoil H. A survey on ontology mapping. SIGMOD Record 2006; 35 (3); 34-41.
47. Ribes D., Bowker G.C. A learning trajectory for ontologies. In 4th Annual Knowledge and Organizations Conference, 2005, Long Beach, CA.
48. Baader F., Horrocks I., Sattler U. Description logics. In Staab S, Studer R eds Handbook on Ontologies 3-28. Berlin: Springer, 2004.
49. Tu S. Protege OWL Short Course. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Medical Informatics, 2005. 14 pp.
50. Informatics S S M. The Protege Ontology Editor and Knowledge Acquisition System 2005.
51. Guarino N., Masola C., Vetere G. Onto-Seek: Content-based access to the web. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications 1999; 14 (3); 70-80.