2314
A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business
IUDPH ZH VHOHFW WKH ³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´ DQG
LQWKH³&KLOGRUJUDQGFKLOG2QWRORJLHV´IUDPH
ZHLQSXWWKHRQWRORJ\QDPH³6WXGHQW´DQGWKH
QDPHVSDFH ³VWX´ IRU WKLV 6WXGHQWB2QWRORJ\
:KHQFOLFNLQJWKH³,QKHULWDQFH´EXWWRQDVLPSOH
Student_Ontology is automatically created which
ZLOOEHVKRZQLQWKHULJKW³&RGHV´IUDPH,QDG-
GLWLRQDVZHVHOHFWWKH³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´LQWKH
³3DUHQW 2QWRORJLHV´IUDPH DOO WKH FRQFHSWV RI
³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´ZLOOEHOLVWHGLQWKH³6HOHFW
&RQFHSWV´FRPERLQWKH³3DUHQW2QWRORJLHV´
IUDPHVRPHFRQFHSWVRI³3HUVRQB2QWRORJ\´
DUHGH¿QHGLQ)LJXUHWKHQZHFDQVHOHFWRQH
FRQFHSWDQGE\FOLFNLQJWKH³%ORFN´EXWWRQD
certain concept of the parent ontology is blocked
in the child ontology. Also, after selecting a con-
cept from the parent ontology and clicking the
³0XWDWLRQ´EXWWRQZHFDQLQGLFDWHWKDWFHUWDLQ
concept of the parent ontology is mutated in the
FKLOGRQWRORJ\)URPWKHULJKW³&RGHV´IUDPHRI
)LJXUHZHFDQVHHWKDW³RI¿FHBSKRQH´LVEORFNHG
E\6W XGHQWB2QWRO R J \ D Q G ³FRQ W D F W B Q R´LV P X W D W H G 
LQ6WXGHQWB2QWRORJ\,IZHFOLFNWKH³6DYH´EXW-
ton, the new Student_Ontology will be saved in
D¿OHEXWLIWKHUHDUHSUREOHPVZHFDQUROOEDFN
10 steps. When a new ontology is created, it will
EHDXWRPDW LFDOO\O LVW HGLQWKH³6HOH FW2 QWRORJ LH V´
F R PER V RI³ * U D Q G S D U H Q W 2 QW RO RJ L H V´ D Q G ³ 3 D U H QW
Ontologies” frames. Similarly, we can use the

atavism operation to indicate that some concepts
of the grandparent ontology are atavismed in the
grandchild ontology or in the offspring ontolo-
gies of the grandchild ontologies. Note that the
³JPRH´LQ)LJXUHLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHRSHUDWLRQV
L Q W K H ³ 2 Q W RO RJ \ / D Q J X D J H 2 U J D Q L ] D W L RQ´ V H FW LRQ 
are a genetic model.
This tool is a prototype to indicate that the
inheritance, block, atavism, and mutation opera-
tions really work in organize ontology language
and ontologies. This prototype tool can be further
improved for commercial use.
Next we summarize the guidelines of how
to organize information in ontologies, that is,
different information should be put at different
hierarchies of ontologies.
The general concepts in a domain should be
put in the highest level ontologies, for example,
O1 in Figure 8. Here O represents Ontologies. If
VRPHFRQFHSWVDUHVSHFL¿FWKH\VKRXOGEHSXWLQ
the lower level ontologies, for example, O2 and
Figure 7. A graphical tool for ontology language and ontology organization
2315
A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business
O3 in Figure 8. When some concepts are more
VSHFL¿FWKH\VKRXOGEHSXWLQHYHQORZHURQWROR-
gies, for example, O4-O9 in Figure 8. Figure 8
shows the hierarchy of ontologies. We allow
multiple inheritance in ontology organizations, for
ex ample , O6 i n herits b ot h O2 an d O3. In pra ct ice,

the hierarchies can be more than three levels.
The hierarchy of ontologies is similar to
the hierarchy of ontology languages. However,
because the concepts in ontologies will change
(add in, move out, and update), next we mainly
GLVFXVVKRZWRUHVROYHWKHFRQÀLFWVLQRQWRORJ\
organizations.
5HVROYH&RQÀLFWVLQOntology
Organization
Kalfoglou and Schorlemmer (2003) survey the
related works on ontology mapping and indicate
WKDWPRVWRIWKHSUHYLRXVZRUNVDUHDERXW¿QGLQJ
the similarities and differences among ontolo-
gies, then the ontologies can be accessed from
a common layer. There are no related works on
UHVROYLQJWKHFRQÀLFWVLQGHVLJQRQWRORJLHV+HUH
ZHGLVFXVVVRPHWHFKQLTXHVWRUHVROYHFRQÀLFWV
in designing ontologies with hierarchies.
When designing ontologies with hierarchies,
it is important to keep the ontologies consistent.
$ FRQFHSW LV VSHFL¿HG LQ DQ RQWRORJ\ LI LW LV
HLWKHU GH¿QHG RUUHGH¿QHG IRUWKHRQWRORJ\ $
UHGH¿QHG FRQFHSW RYHUORDGV D VLPLODU FRQFHSW
in some ancestor ontologies. Figure 9 shows
the hierarchies of ontologies. The O in Figure
9 represents ontologies which are displayed as
rounded rectangles, and the C in Figure 9 rep-
UHVHQWVFRQFHSWVGH¿QHGLQRQWRORJLHVZKLFKDUH
displayed as parallelograms.
In this section, we discuss how to resolve the

FRQÀLFWV$QLQKHULWHGFRQFHSWLVZHOOGH¿QHGLI
LWLVVSHFL¿HGLQRQHDQGRQO\RQHDQFHVWRURQWRO-
RJ\SRVVLEO\LQGLUHFW$FRQÀLFWVLWXDWLRQH[LVWV
ZKHQDQLQKHULWHG FRQFHSWLV QRWZHOO GH¿QHG
that is, two or more ancestor ontologies specify
the same concept. For example, from Figure
9, we can see that concept C1 of ontology O2
LV UHGH¿QHG LQ RQWRORJLHV2 2DQG 2 &
FRQWULEXWHVWRDFRQÀLFWVLWXDWLRQLQ2EXW&
LVZHOOGH¿QHGLQ2
We have the following methods to solve the
FRQÀLFWSUREOHP
 5HGH¿QLQJRURYHUULGLQJ
Figure 8. Architecture of building ontology systems
O1
O2
O4
O3
O5 O7 O8 O9
…
…
O6
…
2316
A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business
The C2 in O9 and O2 in Figure 9 have the
VDPHQDPHWKXVLWPD\EHDFRQÀLFW+RZHYHU
LI&LQ2LVGH¿QHGWRRYHUULGHWKH&LQ2
DQGUHGH¿QHG &ZLWKGLIIHUHQWPHDQLQJWKHQ
WKHUHDUHQRFRQÀLFWV

2. Explicitly selecting or renaming
We use an example to show how to use explic-
LWO\VHOHFWLQJRUUHQDPLQJWRVROYHFRQÀLFWV
Example 9. If the two C4 in O3 and O1 of
Figure 9 have the different semantics, there will
EHDFRQÀLFWLQ27RVROYHWKLVFRQ ÀLFWZHKDYH
WZRRSWLRQV7KH¿UVWRSWLRQKDVWKHRQWRORJ\
designer explicitly mention that the C4 in O9 is
inherited from the C4 in O3. However, explicitly
selecting has a problem, that is, some informa-
tion will be lost. If O9 explicitly mentions that
O9 uses the C4 in O3, the information of the C4
in O1 can not be inherited by O9, which is a loss
of information. The second option to process this
FRQÀLFWLVUHQDPHWKH&LQHLWKHU2RU2RU
both; in this way, all the information can be kept
without lost.
3. Redesigning the organizations of ontologies
(e.g. factoring)
We use the ontology hierarchies shown in
)LJXUH  WR LQWURGXFH WKLV FRQÀLFW UHVROYLQJ
approach. The two Cs in ontologies O2 and O3
have the same semantics, and they have the same
name. Obviously, there will be confusion when O4
inherits C from O2 and O3. In ontology design,
the semantics of each concept in the ontology
should be clear without any ambiguities because
the concepts are shared by the Semantic Web or
e-business applications for semantic information
processing.

7RSURFHVVWKLVFRQÀLFWWKHUHDUHWZRFDVHV
to consider.
1. If O1= O2
 O3, Figure 11. shows that we
can factor C to the parent ontology of Q2
and O3, that is, O1. In this way, O4 inherits
concept C from a single ancestor ontology,
WKHUHIRUHWKHUHDUHQRFRQÀLFWV
2. If O1
 O2  O3, then we create ontology
O5 such that O5 = O2  O3, and factor C to
)LJXUH&RQÀLFWVLQRQWRORJ\GHVLJQ
O5
O6
O9
O3
C1
O7 O8
C1
C1 C2
C1
C3
C2
C
4
O2
O1
O4
C4
2317

A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business
O5. Figure 12 shows this approach. In this
ZD\WKHFRQÀLFWFDQEHUHVROYHGDQGWKH&
is at an appropriate level.
$OJRULWKPWR5HVROYH&RQÀLFWV
)LJXUHVKRZVWKHDOJRULWKPWRUHVROYHFRQÀLFWV
which is a formal summary of the cases in the
³5HVROYH &RQÀLFWV LQ 2QWRORJ\ 2UJDQL]DWLRQ´
section.
:LWK WKHVH FRQÀLFW SURFHVVLQJ DSSURDFKHV
when inserting concepts into or deleting concepts
from ontologies, we should be careful to make
WKHRQWRORJLHVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKRXWFRQÀLFWV/LQJ
& Teo, 1993).
SEMANTIC INFORMATION
PROCESSING IN THE SEMANTIC
WEB AND E-BUSINESS
The present Web exists in the HTML and XML
formats for persons to browse. Recently there
is a trend towards the Semantic Web where the
Figure 11. Factor to parent ontology
O1
C1
O2 O3
O4
)LJXUH5HVROYHFRQÀLFWVE\UHGHVLJQLQJWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQVRIRQWRORJLHV
O1
C
O2 O3
O4

C
Figure 12. Factor to an intermediate level of
ontology
O5
C1
O2 O3
O1
O4
2318
A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business
information can be processed and understood by
a computer. The present e-business also requires
that the semantic information can be automati-
cally exchanged among different agents of the
e-business partners.
When the concepts in different ontologies are
GH¿QHGZLWKclear semantics and ZLWKRXWFRQÀLFWV,
the sharing concepts in ontologies can be used to
annotate the Semantic Web pages or the agents of
the e-business partners. If the information in two
different Semantic Web pages refers to the same
concept from the same ontology, the information
has the same semantics, otherwise the information
is different in the two Semantic Web pages. This
can be automatically recognized by the computer.
It is similar for the semantic information process-
ing in e-business.
We use an example to show how to achieve
the automatically and semantically exchange of
information.

)LJXUH$OJRULWKPWRUHVROYHFRQÀLFWV
Given ontologies with hierarchies
FOR each conflict situation in the hierarchy DO
Let the conflict situation be ontologies A, B1, …, Bn (n > 1) where B1, …, Bn are
the nearest ancestor ontologies of A that specify a property p.
/* Note that a ancestor ontology of some Bi may itself specify a property p. */
/* Check the semantics of p in B1, …, Bn */
IF semantics of p is the same in B1, …, Bn THEN
IF intersection of B1, …, Bn is empty THEN
***Design error, since ontology A (which is the intersection of B1, …, Bn) is empty
ELSE
******/* same semantics (Factoring) */
IF there exists a more general ontology K which is UNION of B1, …, Bn THEN
Factor p to ontology K
ELSE
Resolve the conflict by either:
(a) creating a general ontology K that is the UNION of B1, …, Bn and
factoring p to K.
OR
(b) Explicitly choosing one parent ontology to inherit the property.
ENDIF
ENDIF
ELSE
/* different semantics */
Let G1, G2, …, Gm be sets of mutually exclusive ontologies from B1, …, Bn such
that ontologies in a group share the same semantics for p. Resolve the conflict in A
by adopting one of the following:
(a) redefine p in ontology A, /* not a good solution */ or
(b) Rename p in Gj to, say, p_Gj for j = 1, …, m to reflect their different semantics.
To conform to the unique name assumption. Each p in the schema that has the

same semantics as P_Gj must be renamed to p_Gj.
FOR each group Gj (j = 1, …, m) with 2 or more ontolgoies having property
p_Gj DO
/* An conflict situation exists between ontology A and the ontologies in Gj;*/
/* p_Gj has the same semantics in the ontologies of Gj */
Resolve the conflict in ontology A using the method described in *** and
******.
ENDFOR
ENDIF
ENDFOR
2319
A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business
Example 10. Figure 14 shows how to process
the semantic information in Semantic Web and
e-business applications based on the ontology
KLHUDUFK\ LQWURGXFHG LQ WKH ³%XLOGLQJ 2QWRO-
ogy System” section. We consider the Semantic
:HESDJHV¿UVWO\6HPDQWLF:HESDJHUHIHUVWR
ontologies O4, O5, and O7. Semantic Webpage2
refers to ontologies O5 and O3. If some informa-
tion in Semantic Webpage1 is annotated with the
concepts from O4, obviously Semantic Webpage2
has no such information corresponding to Se-
mantic Webpage1, that is, Semantic Webpage1 is
semantically different from Semantic Webpage2
for such information. If some information in Se-
mantic Webpage1 is annotated by the concepts
from O5, it is possible that Semantic Webpage1
and Semantic Webpage2 have the same seman-
tic information because Semantic Webpage2 is

also annotated with concepts from O5; they can
exchange the semantic information. Semantic
Webpage1 is annotated with the concepts from
O7, Semantic Webpage2 is annotated with the
concepts from O3, and we can see that O7 inherits
O3. Therefore if Semantic Webpage1 is annotated
ZLWKWKHFRQFHSWVQHZO\GH¿QHGLQ26HPDQWLF
Webpage1 and Semantic Webpage2 do not have
the same semantic information about the concepts
in O7. If Semantic Webpage1 is annotated with
the concepts in O7 which are inherited from O3,
Semantic Webpage1 and Semantic Webpage2
may have the same semantic information about
the concepts in O3. It is similar for the semantic
information exchange among the e-business
partners.
Because we organize ontologies with hierar-
FKLHVLWLVHDV\WR¿QGWKHDSSURSULDWHFRQFHSWV
LQRQWRORJLHVEDVHGRQFODVVL¿FDWLRQVDQGOHYHOV
to annotate the Semantic Web pages and the
agents for e-business partners. Also, because of
the hierarchy of ontologies, it is faster to process
the semantic information, that is, it is faster to
search and map the concepts in ontologies based
on hierarchies; the search is only at several related
(related to the semantic information in semantic
Web or e-business) paths of the ontology hierarchy,
but not all the paths.
Figure 14. Semantic information processing in Semantic Web and e-business
O1

O2
O4
O3
O5 O7 O8 O9
…
…
O6
Semantic
Webpage1
e-Business
Partner1
…
…
Semantic
Webpage2
e-Business
Partner2
2320
A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we discuss how to effectively
organize ontology languages and ontologies and
GLVFXVVKRZWRHI¿FLHQWO\SURFHVVVHPDQWLFLQIRU-
mation in Semantic Web and e-business. Figure 15
shows the whole framework to organize ontology
languages, ontologies, and semantic applications
(Semantic Web and e-business). The primitives
in ontology languages organized with hierarchies
DUHXVHGWRGH¿QHRQWRORJLHVDQGWKHFRQFHSWV
in ontologies organized with hierarchies are used

to annotate and process semantic information in
Semantic Web pages and e-business.
More concretely, because we organize ontology
language with hierarchies, we can automatically
Figure 15. Framework to organize ontology languages, ontologies and semantic applications
O1
O2
O4
O3
O5 O7 O8 O9
…
…
O6
Semantic
Webpage1
e-Business
Partner1
…
…
Semantic
Webpage2
e-Business
Partner2
RDF
RDFS
DAML OIL
DAML+OIL
OWL
Semantic applications:
Semantic Web and e-Business

Ontology hierarchy
Ontology language hierarchy
2321
A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business
XVHWKHH[LVWLQJRQWRORJLHVGH¿QHGZLWKRQWRORJ\
languages DAML, OIL, and DAML+OIL. Our
architecture can help to translate the existing
RQWRORJLHVWR RQWRORJLHVGH¿QHGZLWKWKHODWHVW
ontology language—OWL. Furthermore, we can
use single namespace to refer to all the primitives
from different ontology languages, and our on-
tology language hierarchies can help to translate
the namespace to the proper namespaces. The
ontology designer need not bear in mind which
ontology language the primitive exactly comes
IURP :LWK WKHVH WHFKQLTXHV WKH HI¿FLHQF\ RI
ontology building will be improved.
We also organize ontologies with hierarchies
and we discuss some techniques to process the
FRQÀLFWVLQRQWRORJ\GHVLJQ&RQVLVWHQWDQG
semantic clear ontologies are very important to
semantic information processing. The integrated
environment of ontology organizations makes the
semantics in a domain clear.
Based on the hierarchy of ontologies, the
Web pages of Semantic Web and the agents for
e-business partners can be easily annotated, and
the semantic information processing can be pro-
FHVVHGHI¿FLHQWO\
REFERENCES

Amin, M. A., & Morbach, J. (2005). The
DAML+OIL to OWL converter. Retrieved July
10, 2005, from />Research/OntoCAPE/daml2owl.php
Bray, T., Hollander, D., & Layman, A. (1999).
Namespaces in XML. World Wide Web Consor-
tium. Retrieved January 14, 1999, from http://
www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M.,
Maler, E., Yergeau, F., & Cowan, J. (2004).
Extensible markup language (XML) 1.1. W3C
recommendation. Retrieved February 4, 2004,
from />20040204/
Brickley, D., & Guha, R. V. (2004). Resource
description framework schema (RDFS) speci-
¿FDWLRQ. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved
February 10, 2004, from />rdf-schema/
Connolly, D., Harmelen, F. V., Horrocks, I., Mc-
Guinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & Stein, L. A.
(2001a). Annotated DAML+OIL ontology markup.
W3C note. Retrieved December 18, 2001, from
/>Connolly, D., Harmelen, F. V., Horrocks, I., Mc-
Guinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & Stein, L.
A. (2001b, March). DAML+OIL reference descrip-
tion. W3C Note. Retrieved April 11, 2001, from
/>G a r s h o l , L . M . , & M o o r e , G . ( 20 0 4 ). Topic maps—
XML syntax. Retrieved March 16, 2004, from
/>Gil, Y., & Ratnakar, V. (2002). A comparison of
(semantic) markup languages. In M. S. Haller
& G. Simmons (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th
International FLAIRS Conference, Special Track

on Semantic Web, Pensacola, FL (pp. 413-418).
AAAI Press.
Gomez-Perez, A., & Corcho, O. (2002). Ontol-
ogy languages for the Semantic Web. Intelligent
Systems, IEEE, 17(1), 54- 60.
Gruber, T. R. (1992). Ontolingua: A mechanism
to support portable ontologies (Tech. Rep. No.
KSL-91-66). Standford Knowledge Systems
Laboratory.
Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach
to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition,
5(2), 199-220.
Harmelen, F. V., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuin-
ness, D. L., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & Stein., L. A.
(2004). OWL Web ontology language reference.
W3C Recommendation. Retrieved February 10,
2004, from />2322
A Basis for the Semantic Web and E-Business
Horrocks, I., Fensel, D., Broekstra, J., Decker, S.,
Erdmann, M., Goble, C., et al. (2001). The ontology
inference layer OIL. Retrieved December 31, 2001,
from />Kalfoglou, Y., & Schorlemmer, M. (2003). Ontol-
ogy mapping: The state of the art. The Knowledge
Engineering Review, 18(1), 1-31.
Lassila, D. O., & Swick, R. (1999). Resource
description framework (RDF) model and syntax
VSHFL¿FDWLRQ. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved
January 5, 1999, from />rdf-syntax/
Lee, T. B. (1999). The SemanticWeb homepage.
Retrieved December 31, 1999, from http://www.

semanticweb.org
Lee, T. B., Fielding, R., & Masinter, L. (1998,
August). 8QLIRUP UHVRXUFH LGHQWL¿HUV 85,
Generic syntax. I E T F D r a f t S t a n d a r d ( R F C 2 39 6 ) .
Retrieved August 31, 1998, from f.
org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
Ling, T. W., & Teo, P. K. (1993). Inheritance
FRQÀLFWVLQREMHFWRULHQWHGV\VWHPV. In V. Marík,
J. Lazanský, & R. Wagner (Eds.), Proceedings
of Database and Expert Systems Applications
(LNCS 720, pp. 189-200). Prague, Czech Repub-
lic: Springer.
/XNH 6+HÀLQ - $SULO  SHOE
VSHFL¿FDWLRQ. Retrieved April 28, 2000, from
/>html
MacGregor, R. (1991). Inside the LOOM descrip-
WLRQFODVVL¿HU. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3), 88-92.
Popp, B. (2000). The DARPA agent markup lan-
guage homepage. Retrieved September 1, 2000,
from />This work was previously published in Semantic Web Technologies and E-Business: Toward the Integrated Virtual Organiza-
tion and Business Process Automation, edited by A. Salam and J. Stevens, pp. 212-235, copyright 2007 by IGI Publishing (an
imprint of IGI Global).
2323
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 7.22
Semantic Web Standards and
Ontologies in the Medical
Sciences and Healthcare
Sherrie D. Cannoy
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

Lakshmi Iyer
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter will discuss Semantic Web stan-
dards and ontologies in two areas: (1) the medi-
FDOVFLHQFHV¿HOGDQGWKHKHDOWKFDUHLQGXVWU\
Semantic Web standards are important in the
medical sciences since much of the medical
research that is available needs an avenue to be
shared across disparate computer systems. On-
tologies can provide a basis for the searching of
context-based medical research information so
that it can be integrated and used as a foundation
for future research. The healthcare industry will
EHH[DPLQHGVSHFL¿FDOO\LQLWVXVHRIelectronic
health records (EHR), which need Semantic Web
standards to be communicated across different
EHR systems. The increased use of EHRs across
healthcare organizations will also require ontolo-
gies to support context-sensitive searching of in-
formation, as well as creating context-based rules
for appointments, procedures, and tests so that
the quality of healthcare is improved. Literature
in these areas has been combined in this chapter
to provide a general view of how Semantic Web
standards and ontologies are used, and to give
e x a m p l e s o f a p pl i c a t i o n s i n t h e a r e a s o f h e a l t h c a r e
and the medical sciences.
INTRODUCTION
³2QH RI WKH PRVW FKDOOHQJLQJ SUREOHPV LQ WKH

healthcare domain is providing interoperability
among healthcare systems” (Bicer, Laleci, Do-
gac, & Kabak, 2005). The importance of this
interoperability is to enable universal forms of
knowledge representation integrate heterogeneous
information, answer complex queries, and pursue