Hi All,
We are working on creating a linked-data version of an academic
drug-drug interaction (DDIs) knowledge-base called the DIKB that
contains assertions about DDIs observed in clinical studies as well as
assertions about drug mechanisms that can be used to infer DDIs. DIKB
assertions are linked to supporting and refuting evidence (see
<http://www.pitt.edu/~rdb20/data/DIKB-lightning-summary-05262010.pdf>).
Additionally, each use of evidence is linked to "evidence-use
assumptions"; other DIKB assertions that represent assumptions made by
the knowledge base curator when inferring a drug mechanism claim from an
evidence item. We have questions about how to best represent this
assertion/evidence structure as scientific discourse. We have been
looking at the SWAN discourse ontology and it seems possible to use its
elements but have ran into some issues that we are unsure about. For
example, we are not sure if we should map DIKB assertions to research
statements qualified as hypotheses or claims and it is not clear to us
if we should represent DIKB evidence-use assumptions using SWAN
elements. Would anyone have any thoughts based on their experience
representing discourse? Also, has anybody used elements from the OBO
Information Artifact Ontology w/ SWAN to represent scientific discourse?
We also are interested in representing DDIs that are computationally
inferred from assertions in the DIKB but are not sure if there is an
ontology for algorithmic inferences. Would anyone have a suggestion?
Thanks in advance,
-Rich
--
Richard Boyce, PhD
Assistant Professor of Biomedical Informatics and
Intelligent Systems
Scholar, Comparative Effectiveness Research Program
University of Pittsburgh
rd...@pitt.edu
412-648-6768
