I tend to start from the definition given in Schwartz 2005
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~media/publications/masterthesis_kat_domainmodel_2005.pdf (01)
"A taxonomy is essentially a hierarchical tree structure which models a
domain from abstract to specific." (02)
However, she goes on to say that a taxonomy "should" not be
polyhierarchical, which may be good advice for an individual application
but I think supports the wider definition of a taxonomy as any set of
terms disposed according to transitive "Is A" relationships. So as such
I think her definition is too specific. (03)
Many developers take the technical (or common sense) limitation of
single hierarchy and assume that this must apply to taxonomies
generally. I don't go along with this. Some taxonomies (like Linnaeus)
are by definition monohierarchical because they classify entities
according to one classification facet alone. Others like the ISO 10962
Classification of Financial Securities fall down precisely because they
try to shoehorn entities into a single hierarchy while classifying them
according to more than one classification criterion. In the EDM Council
semantics repository ontology, we have built the model around a
polyhierarchical taxonomy, in order to formally model each of the terms
that is considered meaningful in the industry. One thing I am looking at
for a future version is to formally identify the classification criteria
against which each sub-set of something is defined. For example debt
instruments are frequently classified according to their issuer types
(Corporate, Sovereign, Municipal) and separately against their cashflow
behaviour (fixed, floating etc.) and these are all meaningful. One would
expect any individual data application to base its data model around
only one of those classification facets. (04)
So my advice would be to describe something as "a" taxonomy in the
singular if it contains a single coherent sest of entities disposed
according to "Is A" relationships, whether that taxonomy is
monohierarchical or polyhierarchical. That I think would be the simplest
descriptive framework around which to dicuss the nature of any given
taxonomy. I've started to standardise on the term "Classification Facet"
for the different monohierarchical sets of content within that, and I
think others are converging on similar terms but I'm open to ideas. (05)
Also note that this usage supports the creation and description of
taxonomies which are themselves partitioned according to a lattice such
as the KR Lattice, since one taxonomy may have e.g. Independent,
Relative, Mediating as well as Continuant v occurrent at the top level
with "Thing" above that and multiply classified intersections below
(classifying something as a Continuant Independent etc.). Though one
could describe as a taxonomy any coherent sub-set of that whole, for
instance a taxonomy of types of contract. (06)
Mike (07)
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
> (08)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|