首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Biomedical Semantics >Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks
【2h】

Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks

机译:各种生命科学教科书中知识表示和推理要求的比较分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BackgroundUsing knowledge representation for biomedical projects is now commonplace. In previous work, we represented the knowledge found in a college-level biology textbook in a fashion useful for answering questions. We showed that embedding the knowledge representation and question-answering abilities in an electronic textbook helped to engage student interest and improve learning. A natural question that arises from this success, and this paper’s primary focus, is whether a similar approach is applicable across a range of life science textbooks. To answer that question, we considered four different textbooks, ranging from a below-introductory college biology text to an advanced, graduate-level neuroscience textbook. For these textbooks, we investigated the following questions: (1) To what extent is knowledge shared between the different textbooks? (2) To what extent can the same upper ontology be used to represent the knowledge found in different textbooks? (3) To what extent can the questions of interest for a range of textbooks be answered by using the same reasoning mechanisms?
机译:背景技术现在,在生物医学项目中使用知识表示法已经很普遍了。在以前的工作中,我们以对回答问题有用的方式表示了大学级生物学教科书中的知识。我们表明,将知识表示和问答能力嵌入电子教科书中有助于提高学生的兴趣并改善学习。这项成功以及本文的主要重点是一个自然的问题,即类似的方法是否适用于一系列生命科学教科书。为了回答这个问题,我们考虑了四种不同的教科书,从入门级的大学生物学教科书到高级的研究生级神经科学教科书。对于这些教科书,我们调查了以下问题:(1)不同教科书之间的知识共享程度如何? (2)同一上本体可以在多大程度上代表不同教科书中的知识? (3)通过使用相同的推理机制,可以在多大程度上回答一系列教科书所关注的问题?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号