Regarding the UN/CEFACT CCTS: the big strength is not so much the
core component themselves but rather the fact that there is a standardized
methodology for identifying, creating and managing them….
Peter
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane
Nickull
Sent: 07 March 2007 20:47
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] [ontology-summit] PLEASE, PLEASE!!
Keith:
These are good comments. Answers inline:
“I'm wondering why "one person or a small group" labeling some
"thing" is a problem? Is this to say that one person or a small
group can't label a thing correctly and comprehensively keeping the best
interest of the end-user in mind? If a taxonomy has thesaural properties,
or is just a good-old fashioned thesaurus, it should be able to accommodate
various view points with synonymy.”
(DN) From my perspective, even the best intentions get tags wrong or fail to
comprehend variances or differing points of view. The thesaurus approach
is a reasonable way to mitigate this in theory, however from practical
experience, it is much harder. The United Nations Trade Data Element
Dictionary (UN/TDED) tried the once and for all approach and got very far with it
based on a large buy in. The UN/CEFACT CCTS project tried to add the
thesaurus angle with a complicated twist – capturing the context in which
the differing labels were applied and mapping each variance to the upper level
ontology. The jury is still out.
As I said before, I am sitting on the fence. For well framed projects,
the one group deciding certainly works well. Examples include the dewey
decimal system (spelling??), WSDL, XML Infoset, HTML and others where the
semantics of the fixed set of elements were agreed upon and seem to be used
with no problems. If the work is taken outside the original frame or
scope, that seems to be when issues arise. The UN/CEFACT CCTS work is all
in english for example. We had great trouble mapping certain words like
‘payload’ to french. Nevertheless, if the scope is english only
speakers, I think they did a good job.
“As for the Slashdot.org "experiment," why generalize about how
an ontologist or taxonomist would tag it? It sounds like, if there are,
indeed, such unique terms being used to tag something at Slashdot.org that they
would elude a person whose vocation is to tag content using the most
widely-accepted terms, then you're really saying that "one person or a
small group" is tagging things in a completely unique way at Slashdot.org!
Isn't that a problem then?”
(DN) the context was the main reason. For example, an ontologist or a
taxonomist might tag it based on a directive to identify nouns, verbs and
semantics. Some of the /. Crowd tagged news articles with words like
“stupid”, “idiots”, “ROTFL” etc.
While I cannot concretely justify my statement, I would encourage you and
others to take a look for yourselves. It really emphasizes the point.
Cheers
Duane
--
**********************************************************
Sr. Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
*
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee *
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com
*
Music: http://www.mix2r.com/audio/by/artist/duane_nickull*
**********************************************************