Design considerations for an ontology in the domain of organ failure and transplantation

Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

Volumn 90, Issue , 2002, Pages 611-615

  Jacquelinet, Christian ^a   Burgun, Anita ^b   Delamarre, Denis ^b   Strang, Nigel ^a   Boutin, Bernard ^a   Le Beux, Pierre ^b  

^a Etablissement Francais des Greffes   (France)

^b Faculté de Médecine   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION USE; INTEROPERABILITY; ONTOLOGY; SEMANTICS;

CELL TRANSPLANTATION; DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS; DOMAIN ONTOLOGIES; ORGAN FAILURE; PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES; QUALITY OF INFORMATION; SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY;

SEARCH ENGINES;

ARTICLE; FRANCE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; NOMENCLATURE; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; TRANSPLANTATION;

FRANCE; HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; TERMINOLOGY; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT;

EID: 7944230970     PISSN: 09269630     EISSN: 18798365     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-60750-934-9-611     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Sheth A, Larson J. Federated Systems for Managing Distributed, Heteregeneous and Autonomous Databases, ACM Computing Surveys, 22 (1990) 183-235
2. Stengel B, Landais P. Data Collection about the case management of end-stage renal insufficiency. Nephrologie, 20 (1999) 29-40.
3. IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries, IEEE (1990)
4. Hammond WE. The role of standards in creating a health information infrastructure. Int J Biomed Comput. 34(1994) 29-44.
5. Dudeck J. Aspects of implementing and harmonising healthcare communication standards. Int J Med Inf. 48 (1998) 163-71
6. Mallick NP, Jones E, Selwood N. The European (European Dialysis and Transplantation Association-European Renal Association) Registry. Am J Kidney Dis. 1995 Jan;25(l): 176-87-
7. Sowa J. F. Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in mind and machine. Addison-Wesley, London, 1984.
8. Sowa J. F. Conceptual Graph Summary, in Conceptual Structures: current research and practice; Nagle, Nagle, Gerholz & Eklund Ed.; Ellis Horwood Workshops; 1992.
9. Volot F, Joubert M, Fieschi M. Review of biomedical knowledge and data representation with Conceptual graphs. Meth Inf Med. 37 (1998) 86-96.
10. Jacquelinet C, Burgun A. Building the ontological foundations of a terminology from natural language to conceptual graphs with Ribosome, a knowledge extraction tool. ICCS proceedings. In Working with Conceptual Structures. G Stumme Ed, Shaker Verlag, Aachen 2000.
11. Burgun A, Bodenreider O, Denier P, Delamarre D, Botti G, Oberlin P, Leveque JM, Bremond M, Fieschi M, Le Beux P. A collaborative approach to building a terminology for medical procedures using a Webbased application: from specifications to daily use. Medinfo. 1998; 9 Pt 1:596-9.
12. De Keizer NF, Abu-Anna A, Zwetsloot-Shonk JHM. Understanding Terminological Systems I: Terminology and Typology. Meth Inform Med. 2000: 39; 16-21
13. De Keizer NF, Abu-Anna A. Understanding Terminological Systems II: Experience with Conceptual and Formal Representation of Structure. Meth Inform Med. 2000: 39; 22-9
14. Rossi Mori A et al. Exploiting the terminological approach from CEN/TC251 and GALEN to support semantic interoperability of healthcare record systems. Int J Med Inf. 48 (1998) 111-24.
15. Mc Donald CJ et al. What is done, what is needed and what is realistic to expect from medical informatics standards. Int J Med Inf. 48 (1998) 5-12.
16. Spackman K, Campbell KE, Compositional Concept Representation Using SNOMED: toward further convergence of clinical terminologies. In Proc AMIA symp 1998: 740-44.