<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Where does an Ontology start?</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Henriette Harmse</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Melanie Courtot</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Warren Read</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Nico Matentzoglu</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>David Osumi- Sutherland</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Simon Jupp</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>The European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI)</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, CB10 1SD</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="UK">UK</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>A good ontology design practice is to define terms based on terms from upper ontologies. Hence, the terms of the current ontology often are found deep down the hierarchy, which users can find confusing. Here we suggest ways to deal with this.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>visualisation, tree, roots</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Biomedical ontologies have become important in the
biological and medical domains through their provisioning of
common controlled vocabularies. A model of good practice
guiding the design of biomedical ontologies is to define terms
based on terms from common higher level ontologies (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ). In
the OBO community the use of upper-level ontologies, such as
BFO (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ), is recommended. While upper-ontologies bring value
for the interoperability of ontologies, they often contain terms
that are hard to understand for non-ontologists (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ). Yet these
terms are often the first thing a user is presented with when
exploring an ontology, especially if the ontology class
hierarchy is being presented using a standard tree-based
visualisation.
      </p>
      <p>To alleviate this, we propose a standard annotation property to
indicate to visualisation tools what is the set of classes that
should be considered root concepts of the ontology. Online
ontology browsers and visualisation tools can use this
information to render the ontology and highlight where the
root concepts sit in the hierarchy. To illustrate the issues we
present an example from the Data Use Ontology (DUO) and
support for a new “hasPreferredRootTerm” annotation
property for ontologies hosted by the EMBL-EBI Ontology
Lookup Service (OLS).</p>
      <p>The DUO provides standard codes to indicate the secondary
use restrictions and conditions on scientific data sharing. It
imports a number of ontologies which are used as the basis on
which terms in DUO are defined. DUO is available via OLS
and BioPortal, and both browsers present the DUO root
classes of “Entity” from BFO and oboInOwl:ObsoleteClass by
default. Several users have commented that they find it
difficult to find the DUO codes when navigating the ontology
as these are buried six levels deep in the hierarchy under the
concept of “consent code” and “data use requirement”.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Implementation</title>
      <p>OLS has been extended support the use of a new OWL
annotation property with the IRI
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/vocabulary/hasPreferredRootTerm which
can be used on the ontology to assert the set of class IRIs that
can be considered as roots. OLS will detect this property and
change how the class hierarchy is rendered by default to only
show the root terms, as specified by the property. The full
classification is preserved internally, and users are able to
easily switch (via radio button selection) to see the fully
expanded classification if they wish.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>The interest and use of ontologies continues to increase in the
life sciences, but we need to be able to effectively present and
communicate these ontologies to a wide audience of users. In
some cases this means hiding the complexity of the underlying
machinery, such as OWL or upper-level ontologies. With over
65 ontologies in OLS alone that start with a root concept of
“Entity”, our simple proposal could significantly improve the
way these ontologies are presented to users.</p>
      <p>We are exploring additional ways to simplify the presentation
of root terms that include detecting root terms based on OBO
namespaces of the presence of terms in the OBO Core1. There
may also be other more appropriate vocabularies for
expressing this information within an ontology, such as the use
of SKOS concept schemes. At this stage we are open to
working with the community to collect more use-cases and
welcome feedback on the approach presented here.
1 https://github.com/OBOFoundry/Experimental-OBO-Core</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Smith</surname>
            <given-names>B</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ashburner</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rosse</surname>
            <given-names>C</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bard</surname>
            <given-names>J</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bug</surname>
            <given-names>W</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ceusters</surname>
            <given-names>W</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>The OBO Foundry: Coordinated Evolution of Ontologies to support Biomedical Data Integration</article-title>
          .
          <source>Nature biotechnology</source>
          .
          <year>2007</year>
          ;
          <volume>25</volume>
          (
          <issue>11</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>1251</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>5</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stevens</surname>
            <given-names>R</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lord</surname>
            <given-names>P</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Malone</surname>
            <given-names>J</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and Matentzoglu N.
          <article-title>Measuring Expert Performance at Manually Classifying Domain Entities under Upper Ontology Classes:</article-title>
          <year>2018</year>
          ; abs/
          <year>1810</year>
          .05093.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>