On May 28, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Deborah MacPherson wrote:
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
· relationships and rules
My inclination is this should say "a" taxonomy.
Surely it should. Without it, "taxonomy" can only refer to the study of taxonomies or the practice of taxonomy building or the like (compare "ontology" vs "an ontology"). But that meaning makes no sense in the context.
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?
"Multiple taxonomies" and "related taxonomies" both imply more than one; "a set of taxonomies" doesn't, and hence is slightly more general. Since a conceptual data model could be a model of a single taxonomy, "a set of taxonomies" seems to be the better choice. So it seems to me, at least.