NucLexNuclear Medicine Lexicon and Theranostics Ontology
Stage W0: private living prototype12 of 30 manuscripts drafted, 0 reviewed; 50 lexicon entries in draftWhat each later stage would need to show

Tools and roadmap

From living publication to interactional knowledge

A staged scientific project that begins with content. Each later stage has to earn its place with a demonstration.

EssayBriefNX-E10Proposed length 2,000 to 3,000 words

Writing brief. This essay has been assigned but the manuscript is not yet written or approved. What follows is the commissioning brief: its question, outline, evidence instructions, and review requirements.

Central question

What evidence should justify each technical stage?

Reader promise

A staged scientific project that begins with content. The reader will finish knowing what NucLex is now, what each stage would add, and what demonstration would show a stage has been reached rather than described.

Required development

  1. Explain the recorded prototype principles: build the living prototype before bureaucracy; unfinished in quantity, complete in soul; stop and reflect before expanding.
  2. Separate website W0 from technical V1. W0 is this publication: versioned content, briefs and drafts with explicit states, no terminology endpoint. Technical V1 is the proposed SNOMED-focused ontology foundation and terminology services. Nothing in W0 is a delivered V1 capability; present tense only for implemented capability.
  3. Cover V1A through V4 plus, each with its problem: V1A, agentic candidate proposals with Human review as the boundary to accepted content; V2, the three pillars (SNOMED-focused extension, source registry, concept composer with Provenance); V3, standards governance under accountable roles; V4, versioned public services; V4 plus, model-ready interactional knowledge.
  4. Connect entities, interactions, parameters, context, units, and uncertainty. Keep properties of molecule A, properties of molecule B, and A interacting with B distinct (Interactional ontology, Interaction). A Parameter record carries value, units, Context, Uncertainty, evidence, and version.
  5. End with demonstration gates, one per stage.

Evidence and review

Evidence to obtain: the recorded requirements and platform roadmap (PLAT01 to PLAT07) for intended behavior; the W3C OWL 2 overview and the SBML format description as standards to build on; implementation evidence (repository state, test output, a working endpoint) for any capability described as existing. An explanatory page does not deliver a capability. Simulation output does not establish clinical validity.

Demonstration gates per stage: W0, a reader follows an essay into a monograph and a concept entry without a broken link, and every page shows its state. V1, a reviewed concept is retrievable with its version from a terminology service. V1A, a machine-proposed candidate reaches a reviewer with its evidence packet and model version, and a person accepts or rejects it. V2, a compound concept resolves to its source authorities with provenance. V3, a proposal passes triage, review, and approval under named roles, and the decision is published. V4, an external developer retrieves a versioned concept through a documented public service. V4 plus, a model retrieves a reviewed interaction or parameter with context, units, uncertainty, and provenance.

Review concern: a reader may mistake the roadmap for a delivery claim. Invent no dates, funding, or staffing.

Interactional ontology, Parameter, Uncertainty, Context, Interaction, Human review, Provenance, Interactional ontology, Model-ready knowledge exchange. Link at the point of use.

Review requirements

Source check against the recorded requirements and any implementation evidence cited. Domain review by an informatician familiar with terminology services and a modeler familiar with model exchange formats. Editorial check that each gate is a test, not a promise.