It was said in the email below:
to enable structured modeling of terminologies, controlled vocabularies, and thesauri, so to map these into ontologies.
I believe this mapping is a non-repeatable performance, and is not an engineering act, in the sense that an engineering act has proper quality
control and repeatability
From a complete ontology, in the sense of ISO TR9007, it is possible to provide a projection that delivers structured terminologies, controlled
vocabularies and thesauri. Hence repeatable.
Unfortunately the other way around is not repeatable but extremely popular.
Chief Technical Officer
Tel: +31 (0)88-777 0 444
Mob: +31 (0)6-21 510 844
Fax: +31 (0)88-777 0 499
Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Namens Obrst, Leo J.
Verzonden: maandag 11 februari 2013 0:07
Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Human knowledge domains ontology
I agree with William. You are probably looking instead for a terminological (non-ontology) “subject area classification” system, along the lines
of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) system and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), ODP’s DMOZ, the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, the Universal Decimal Classification system (UDC), Chaim Zins’ Pillars of Knowledge, or something
comparable. Searching on each of these will provide URIs. Sorry, don’t have them right now.
The W3C SKOS standard was developed to enable structured modeling of terminologies, controlled vocabularies, and thesauri, so to map these into
ontologies. Term/terminology vs. ontology is the usual distinction.
I do think that upper ontologies do not mostly organize knowledge by domains of the human endeavors intended to extend our knowledge, which is what your examples below show.
Rather, upper ontologies are concerned with indidviual concepts, like attitudes, things, and events. One of these individual concepts might be domain of endeavor. I think or hope that the definion of such a concept would not lead to its subtyping by different
domains, like astrophysics, as part of the upper ontology.
I think domains of human knowledge have been considered most extensively in library science, and in university course catalogs, and in encyclopedias. (including the Wikipedia)
But this is not a nice hierarchical structure -- thus university courses and even departments change regularly.
And, so Librarians turned to faceted analyis in the early 1970s.
There are journals and conferences etc about these kinds of classifications.
The Library of Congress has a new subject classification starting in 2012. The Dewey Decimal System is a little rustier.
This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees only.
It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
without the permission of the sender.