Re: [ontolog-forum] Human knowledge domains ontology

["Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Sjir,

 

The usual way is to map terminologies into ontologies. Terminologies can represent many different user communities, who wish to preserve their terms (words, phrases) but yet map into concepts (ontologies) that represent an approximation to and representation of what those terms mean. Of course distinct natural languages have the issue of mapping their terms to those concepts too. In general, the mapping is n terminologies to 1 ontology, but realistically things can get more complicated.

 

Thanks,

Leo

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sjir Nijssen
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:19 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Human knowledge domains ontology

 

To all,

 

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.

 

Regards

 

Sjir Nijssen

 

Chief Technical Officer

PNA Group

 

Tel:     +31 (0)88-777 0 444

Mob: +31 (0)6-21 510 844

Fax:    +31 (0)88-777 0 499

E-mail: sjir.nijssen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pna-group.com

 

Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens Obrst, Leo J.
Verzonden: maandag 11 februari 2013 0:07
Aan: [ontolog-forum]
Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Human knowledge domains ontology

 

Sergey,

 

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.

 

Thanks,

Leo

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Frank
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:42 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Human knowledge domains ontology

 

Sergey,

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.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Сергей Мещерин <sergey.metcherin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Good day, colleagues,

 

I'm developing ontology for RFBR classifier and want to connect it to some well-known upper ontology that lists human knowledge domains. I expect that this ontlology can look like:

 

Thing

  Natural Science

    Physics

    Chemistry

    Math

      Numerical analysis

      Probability theory

    ...

  Humanities

    Literature

    Law

    ...

 

Does this ontology exist and where can I find it? I've looked over http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Protege_Ontology_Library and tried Swoogle but couldn't find any suitable ontologies.

 

--
Best regards, Metcherin Sergey.

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

--
William Frank

413/376-8167


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.

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)