To: | ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
---|---|
From: | Leo Obrst <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:07:20 -0500 |
Message-id: | <3DBD6EC7.1BBA34A1@xxxxxxxxx> |
Mike,
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: if there is 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 as a whole, 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). Leo
MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote: Hi All, --
|
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?, Leo Obrst |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?, Miller, Robert (GXS) |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?, Leo Obrst |
Next by Thread: | RE: [ontolog] UBL proposals for codesets?, Miller, Robert (GXS) |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |