There seems to be two definitions of a taxonomy used in this list.
1. A tree structure of subtypes
2. A DAG (directed acyclic graph) of subtypes. (01)
I'm more comfortable with using the term "taxonomy" to refer to #1 and
"hierarchy" to refer to #2. (02)
On Mon, May 31, 2010 13:30, Mike Bennett said:
> We don't rely on words for meanings, and I see no reason why anyone
> would. Terms are either Things or Facts, and each of these has a label
> which happens to be whichever word business domain experts are most
> comfortable with, and any number of synonyms which are other words with
> the same meaning.
> The meaning of an individual kind of Thing is pinned down in two ways
> (and independently by its agreed written definition):
> 1. What kind of thing is it (taxonomy) (03)
In general, this would be a hierarchy (Def. #2) (04)
> 2. What facts about this thing distinguish it from another thing
> (ontology - adding facts about things in the taxonomy).
> Question (1) uses the "Is A" relationship and therefore, de facto,
> defines a taxonomy. (05)
Again, "a hierarchy". (06)
> Question (2) looks at the properties of the thing
> (what we call, in English, Simple Facts and Relationship Facts; in OWL
> these are Datatype Properties and Object Properties). (07)
Facts in general could include more complex structures such as rules. (08)
> Uniqueness would be an issue if we also imposed a global uniqueness (09)
One would not want uniqueness of name when allowing the use of multiple
ontologies -- either for types or for individuals. (010)
-- doug foxvog (011)
> requirement on the overall model, but this would not be realistic if one
> is to also use terms that business subject matter experts are familiar
> with. The alternative would be an ISO 11179 naming rules convention,
> which would be clumsy but could be used to provide a separate, unique
> name which is not displayed. True uniqueness belongs in the URI for each
> term. Since our model is created and edited in UML, the intention is
> that once this is transformed to OWL the UML package structure would be
> used to generate the URIs. Then we simply implement naming uniqueness at
> the package level.
> I hope that makes you less nervous. Funds was one of the most difficult
> areas to model and still requires work (we intend to realign it with the
> most recent version of the EFAMA Data Dictionary, which was available
> only in an early draft when we did that part of the model).
> David Eddy wrote:
>> Mike -
>> On May 31, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Mike Bennett wrote:
>>> In the EDM Council
>>> semantics repository ontology, we have built the model around a
>>> polyhierarchical taxonomy, in order to formally model each of the
>>> that is considered meaningful in the industry.
>> I am by NO means a professional taxonomist. I watch them. I get
>> VERY nervous when I see "hierarchy" used in the context of the
>> concepts & terminology in & around software information systems.
>> How does the taxonomy/classification process handle the situation (I
>> assume the reality) of terms having multiple meanings?
>> I am thinking in the context of having worked on "a" mutual fund
>> system that was a continually growing combination of a core package
>> which had been extensively modified, extended & customized plus the
>> addition of at least 7 additional "systems" (both packages & custom
>> written) grafted onto/into the original package.
>> Obviously the chance of the same term meaning the same thing across
>> such an expanse was very close to zero. And this was looooooong
>> before the concept of taxonomies being useful in information systems
>> came into the popular vernacular (as distinct from USE).
>> David Eddy
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 781-455-0949 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>> 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
> Mike Bennett
> Hypercube Ltd.
> 89 Worship Street
> London EC2A 2BF
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
> Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
> Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
> 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
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (013)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (015)