Ed, (01)
I used the NAIC myself about 4 years ago to classify a particular segment of
the NB economy. (02)
But from an ontological perspective, organizations should not show up as a
child of a particular activities class, but rather have an association to the
bottommost item (instance) listed for a particular tree. I can see how the NAIC
was used as a simple drop down taxonomy. (03)
Organizations are organizations who do an activity that yes can be classified,
but it is improper to put them under an activity philosophically. It would be
like me saying: (04)
Bradley Shoebottom can be classed under Fredericton (the city I live in) in a
list of Canadian Cities organized by county, then Province then nation. I am
not really a city, rather I am a Frederictonian which is semantically
different. Frederictonian implies a person with residency. (05)
Using this excerpt from the NAIC. (06)
<Apple>, as an instance of schema.org/Corporation <hasNAICclassification>
instance <334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing> which is an instance of
class <33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing> (07)
<Apple> also <hasNAICclassification> instance <334210> as a child of <33421
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturin>g. Apple is not classed as the broader <3342
Communications Equipment Manufacturing> because that would imply they make
radios and TVs. (08)
334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
3341 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
33411 Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing
334112 Computer Storage Device Manufacturing
334118 Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
3342 Communications Equipment Manufacturing
33421 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
33422 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing
334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing
33429 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing (09)
After working through this thought process, yes, I can simplify this to a
simple rdf class structure with instances being companies instead of the
activities, but my tool set still can't easily import the excel file and I
either need a script or many enter 2000+ classes and arrange them. I just did a
time estimate and it would take 20 seconds per entry or 12 hours in total. (010)
I can do this in my free time over the next 2-3 weeks. (011)
Bradley Shoebottom
Senior Information Architect - Research and Product Development
Phone: (506) 674-5439 | Toll-Free: (800) 363-3358
Skype: bradley.shoebottom
Email: bradley.shoebottom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
www.innovatia.net (013)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barkmeyer,
Edward J
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:28 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology (014)
Bradley Shoebottom wrote: (015)
> Translating the NAIC into rdf is a much bigger job than anticipated.
>
> IT requires that a script be written to distinguish between classes
> and instances (instances are the bottom most number of a tree). I do
> not have this skill. (016)
Hmm... This takes a particular view of the tree that is somewhat unexpected.
According to the NAIC documentation, these are all Classes. The instances are
organizations, practices, etc., that participate in those industrial
activities. What am I missing? (017)
-Ed (018)
>
> I initially thought I could easily pivot the table to create a tree
> and then import, but I do not have those skills in excel.
>
> My tool does not easily allow the creation of classes from the
> spreadsheet. I would be looking at a many day process to develop the
> hierarchy and then populate it with instances.
>
> I am wondering if someone at Reassert is still around that helped
> convert the US data gov info into RDF?
>
> The OmniClass Table 32 has a problem too because many of the Level 2
> title use the same title as in other Level 1 categories. The OmniClass
> code does changes. The definition remains the same. I So I could
> create instances based on the code and when you query the label, you
> would potentially get several and you would have to select the correct
> parent category. Or, I create instances based on the title name and
> include the several codes assigned to the same title with the single
> definition. You would be able to find the proper code you want through
> the options of the parent class. Once you let me know which you
> prefer, it would be easy to implement as my idea would only have the
> Level 1 titles be a class (about 10) and the remaining Level 2-4 to be
> instances using SKOS broader/narrower to define level 2-4. I can include
>synonyms (skos altLabel) and definitions.
>
>
>
> Bradley Shoebottom
> Senior Information Architect - Research and Product Development
> Phone: (506) 674-5439 | Toll-Free: (800) 363-3358
> Skype: bradley.shoebottom
> Email: bradley.shoebottom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> www.innovatia.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MacPherson, Deborah
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:04 AM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
> Hi Paul
>
> A few years ago I dug into the NAICS codes and there is already a nice
> overlap.
>
> The OmniClass Services table maps over to these codes, see
> [http://www.nationalbimstandard.org/nbims-us-v2/pdf/NBIMS-
> US2_c2.8.pdf]
>
> OmniClass and NAICS sit right next to each other (alphabetically!) on
> the DoD Products and Services Report in the Business Enterprise
> Architecture 8.1, see
> [http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-
> architecture/8.1/delta/term.htm] however please note 10 is current,
> see
> [http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-
> architecture/10.0/classic/index.htm]
>
> The Department of Energy DOE Building Energy Performance (BEP)
> Taxonomy also includes both OmniClass and NAICS, see
> [http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial/pdfs/doe_building_e
> nergy_performance_taxonomy.pdf]
>
> I'll look back at the Census spreadsheet and try to mash it up with
> some other things, thanks for the link.
>
> Deborah
>
> DEBORAH MACPHERSON
> Specifications and Research
>
> Cannon Design
> 3030 Clarendon Blvd.
> Suite 500
> Arlington, VA 22201
>
> Phone: 703.907.2353
> Direct Dial: 2353
>
> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cannondesign.com
> Skype debmacp
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pope, Paul Albert
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:21 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
> Deborah, et al.,
>
> I offer the following (perhaps cursory) info, FYI/FWIW, concerning
> your statement "...a part name or number ... that could be mapped to a
> generic form for broader exchange purposes" and the general interest
> in the "facilities domain."
>
> North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
> http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
> "It was developed jointly by the U.S. Economic Classification Policy
> Committee (ECPC), Statistics Canada, and Mexico's Instituto Nacional
> de Estadistica y Geografia, to allow for a high level of comparability
> in business statistics among the North American countries."
> I wish this taxonomy was available in OWL or other format; alas, it is
> only(?) available as a spreadsheet:
> http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/reference_files_tools/2012/2012_
> NAICS_Structure.xls
>
> Concerning "Dining and Drinking Spaces", try entering the keyword "dining"
> into the search text box in the upper left for "2012 NAICS Search".
> The last code in the list retrieved is "722511 Full-Service
> Restaurants". Click on that link. Not responsible for hunger pangs
> that might result ;-)
>
> B/R,
> Paul Pope, Ph.D.
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ontology-summit-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of MacPherson, Deborah
> [dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:56 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
> Somewhere in this discussion is a problem that is the essence of what
> has been holding up progress in the facilities domain.
>
> There are ways to publish technical requirements or test for
> conformance online for free, and pay (even substantially) to
> participate in the working groups or have voting privileges. For example OGC,
>W3C.
>
> I can even see being able to own a part name or number within a larger
> communication machine that could be mapped to a generic form for
> broader exchange purposes. For example "13-57 13 15 Dining and Drinking
>Spaces"
> versus "The Sand Bar and Grille"
>
> Depending on the domain, or need for cross disciplinary discussion,
> many on the IP-protected side have no interest in supporting, or will
> even actively stops progress, on a common model. There is also the
> problem of failed common models that do not work, will not accommodate
> different object definitions - from software to software or industry
> model to industry model - without loss of data or functionality.
> Bentley systems has stepped forward in this white
> paper<http://ftp2.bentley.com/dist/collateral/docs/bentley_institute/W
> hite _paper_IFC.pdf> on the IFC model to say actually - the emperor
> has no clothes on. See pages 6 and 7 "Round Tripping"
>
> For some reason I think ontologies might be a way these IP-With-Open
> problems might be fixed but maybe I am wrong or wishing for too much.
>
> DEBORAH MACPHERSON
> Specifications and Research
>
> Cannon Design
> 3030 Clarendon Blvd.
> Suite 500
> Arlington, VA 22201
>
> Phone: 703.907.2353
> Direct Dial: 2353
>
> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> m>
> Cannondesign.com
> Skype debmacp
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:25 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Peter R. Benson
> <Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Deborah, IP is a real issue. We designed the eOTD to try to resolve
> some of these issues. In a dictionary the IP resides in the
> representation but also in the identifiers or codes as these are always
>copyright.
>
> That is not entirely clear; see e.g. SOUTHCO, INC v. KANEBRIDGE
> CORPORATION ( http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021243pe.pdf ),
> where part numbers were found to be not protected (but see also how
> Alito takes care to distinguish Delta Dental )
>
> Simon
>
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
> summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (019)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (020)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (021)
|