|From:||Leo Obrst <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:02:47 -0500|
One issue with your suggestion is that, hypothetically, a concept Uruguay then really has no connection to UR or URY (these are fictitious) but only to CODESET1 and CODESET2 or perhaps you mean to CODESET1[Uruguay's index], CODESET2[Uruguay's index]? This is therefore just a syntactic relation. One problem is: there may be no one-to-one relation between a given concept and a codeset and so also many-to-many relations between 2 codesets. But if you have an ontology node, say "ball peen hammer" and a few codesets (i.e, think of a taxonomic codeset such as the UNSPSC and NAICS), you might have to have multiple mappings.
There is obviously a semantic relation between codesets and the individual codesets should be semantically codified too. I don't disagree with that.
Re Uruguay as a concept: although it can be considered an instance typically, there are often strong reasons to have it as a concept (eg., in a belief space where there are multiple Uruguay instances, etc).
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?, MDaconta|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?, Leo Obrst|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?, MDaconta|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?, Leo Obrst|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|