ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Are Classifications nothing more than Indexes?

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Frank Guerino <Frank.Guerino@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:22:06 -0400
Message-id: <CE2DC605.451B4%Frank.Guerino@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi,

Very simply… Are classifications nothing more than what Librarians call "Indexes"?

As part of my involvement with the IF4IT, I've been involved in a project called NOUNZ that attempts to figure out and represent Taxonomies and Ontologies visually (both with text and/or with interactive pictures) through the creation of an Electronic Library that helps facilitate Knowledge Management.  In doing so, we followed a common Library Management paradigm that drove us to leverage common Library Constructs…
  • Master Catalogs (Catalogs of Catalogs)
    • Domain Catalogs (Catalogs of things that are specific to homogeneous topic domains)
      • Indexes (ways of grouping things)
        • Entities (those individual elements that represent nodes in space like media such as books, articles, etc.) 
          • Semantic Relationships Between Entities (relationships between entities that have contextual meaning)
In the process of analyzing and trying to provide solutions for each of these common Library Constructs, and specifically in the context of analyzing Indexes, we keep coming to the conclusions that
  1. Indexes are nothing more than a "classification" constructs, and
  2. Indexes highlight how ineffective hierarchical representations of Taxonomy really are because "Electronic Indexes" can be and commonly are recursive, also "lopping-back" on and leveraging each other.
For example, if we take "Services" as the domain of discussion, we can first index or classify the Services by Type and by Importance…
  • Services
    • Services by Type (e.g. Strategy Services, Delivery Services, Support Services, etc.)
    • Services by Importance (e.g. High Importance Services, Medium Importance Services, Low Importance Services, etc.)
Computer programming allows us to add elements of recursion and feedback to achieve further sub-indexing or sub-classification that does not scale for humans.  For example, the above becomes…
  • Services
    • Services by Type (e.g. Strategy Services, Delivery Services, Support Services, etc.)
      • Service by Type further classified/indexed by Importance (e.g. Strategy Services that are of Critical Importance, Strategy Services that are of High Importance, etc.) 
    • Services by Importance (e.g. High Importance Services, Medium Importance Services, Low Importance Services, etc.)
      • Service of Importance further classified/indexed by type (e.g. Critical Importance Services that are Strategy Services, High Importance Services that are Strategy Services, etc.)
In our work, we've come to the conclusion that Indexes and Classifications are 100% synonymous.

I'd like your opinions and insights on the topic.  Do you believe this is accurate or not (and if not, why)?

My Best,

Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)



_________________________________________________________________
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>