> Pat and Ken,
> Ranganathan's system is not an ontology, since it does not
> contain any axioms. But it is a very detailed, flexible,
> and extensible classification system.
> PC> Do you think that a topic classification system suitable
> > for libraries can actually serve to encode information in
> > a form suitable for automated reasoning?
> Any ontology must include a classification system as a subset.
> If an ontology is going to be usable for the full range of
> topics that are covered by the WWW, it must include a system
> of classification as broad as Ragnanathan's.
> PC> Do you have any examples of how such a classification has
> > been used with an automated reasoner?
> Look at Cyc. It has a very broad classification system that
> supports multiple inheritance. Any ontology that is intended
> to support interoperability among any range of systems that
> access and use the WWW, must be as extensible as Cyc and/or
> Ranganathan's system. (I'm not recommending either one
> exactly as is, but I do suggest that we study both.)
> KL> My thought has always been I build the ontologies to relate
> > the various classification facets (or the values applied to
> > the facets) without having to assume a governing set of facets
> > and values for all uses.
> There is no reason why you should define more than you need for
> your application. But if two or more groups want to make their
> systems work together, it must be possible to embed all of them
> within a broader system that can accommodate all the categories
> of each. Therefore, it's desirable to have a broader framework
> in mind, even for a small, narrowly defined project.
> An important reason for studying a system such as Ranganathan's
> is that he had spent many years trying to work out categories
> that can accommodate all the books in all the libraries of India.
> So he has a system of categories that spans an enormous range,
> which probably includes a large part of what is being covered
> by the WWW.
> I don't recommend that we adopt R's system exactly as is. But
> we should consider it or something like it as an example of how
> to accommodate multiple systems interoperating across the WWW.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx