Hell All! (01)
Thanks very much for the stimulating reading! I was in meetings most of
yesterday, but just spent some time with my morning coffee pondering the
many deep thoughts to be found in this thread. (02)
I have more research to do, but you have certainly given me quite a bit to
start with. I will say that most modern taxonomies are not strictly
hierarchical, but use facets that allow property sets to be defined that
can be applied to information objects (at least in my world). Although the
facets have typical thesauri relationships (Broader Than, Narrower Than,
Related To, etc), the taxonomy as a whole does not need to have a strict
hierarchical tree structure. Thus, no facet is "more important" or nested
under another. (03)
As an example of this, see the NASA taxonomy http://nasataxonomy.jpl.nasa.gov (04)
Although the taxonomy is very broad in nature, it is meant to act as a top
level brokering layer, and as such, has functioned very well for us as we
develop Center vocabularies that are domain specific, but need to be
integrated into a larger point of view. (05)
Once again, thanks very much to you all. I will continue to listen and
learn from all of you. (06)
Regards, (07)
Jayne Dutra (08)
*******************************
Jayne Dutra
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Information Architecture and Semantic Engineering
JPL Knowledge Management
818-354-6948
****************************** (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|