Deborah, (01)
The good news is that because taxonomies are defined by the user,
you can say whatever you want about how they are used. Everyone's
language and profession varies so you have to include what is
required for your use. (02)
That said, there are a couple of caveats. First, you always face
the possibility that someone will hold your feet to the fire
because you change the use of the taxonomy, which may differ from
the understandings of others. So, a more flexible, open definition
is preferred. (03)
Second, you future work will be at the mercy of the tools you find
available. If you definition is outside the scope of you toolset
then some changes will be needed. To avoid problems with tools with
respect to your definition, you should have some idea how the
system will operate and what types of tools will be required.
(Always prepare for Version 2.0) (04)
-John Bottoms
FirstStar Systems
Concord, MAA
T:978-505-9878 (05)
Deborah MacPherson wrote:
> Dear Ontolog Forum
>
>
>
> Since last July I've been talking with the National Information Exchange
> Model (NIEM) Business Architecture Committee (NBAC) about facilities
> information, and looking at NIEM documentation in more detail to figure
> out what needs to be done with facility classes and xml schemas for
> re-use outside the building industry. Currently, NBAC is looking at the
> upcoming Information Exchange Model (IEM) Specification. An appendix
> lists definitions for IEM Artifacts, the following definition is used
> for Ontology
>
>
>
> "A conceptual data model that represents relationships and rules among
> nodes in taxonomy"
>
>
>
> Please temporarily disregard previous conversations on this forum about
> appropriate definitions for ontology - this seems to be OK for purposes
> of this exchange model - even if it may not be correct for other
> purposes. However, grammatically there seems to be a problem with what
> is singular and what is plural
>
>
>
> · A conceptual data model
>
> · represents
>
> · relationships and rules
>
> · nodes
>
> · taxonomy
>
>
>
> My inclination is this should say "a" taxonomy. But that is why I'm
> writing, would it be more conceptually and technically correct to say
> "multiple" or "related" or "a set of" taxonomies? Feedback would be
> appreciated on exactly how this short definition should be written
> accurately. Also, the definition does need to stay very short
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> Deborah MacPherson
>
>
>
> --
> ********************************************************
>
> Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
> Specifications and Research Cannon Design
> Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
>
> ********************************************************
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|