On May 28, 2010, at 3:35 PM, 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.
No, I am sorry, this is not adequate for anyone or for any purpose. It is just flat WRONG, and wrong in a pernicious and harmful way. It embodies the terrible, destructive error known as confusing use and mention. The relationships described by an ontology are not between nodes in a taxonomy. They are between the THINGS that such nodes REFER TO. An ontology of buildings talks about buildings, not about building-nodes.
Grammar is irrelevant at this point, frankly. It is like arguing about what color to paint a car that has just been driven over a cliff.