Miles, AJ (Alistair | 7 Jun 16:25 2005
Picon
Picon

Announcement of W3C SKOS Core first public Working Drafts

  W3C Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group 

We are pleased to announce the publication of the following technical
reports as first public Working Drafts:

  SKOS Core Guide
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20050510/

  SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-spec-20050510/

  Quick Guide to Publishing a Thesaurus on the Semantic Web
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-thesaurus-pubguide-20050517/

SKOS Core is a simple, flexible and extensible language for expressing
the structure and content of concept schemes (thesauri, classification
schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, terminologies, glossaries
and other types of controlled vocabulary) in a machine-understandable
form.

The SKOS Core Vocabulary is an application of the Resource Description
Framework (RDF).  Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged
with other data. In practice, this means that distributed sources of
data can be meaningfully composed and integrated.

The 'SKOS Core Guide' is a guide to the recommended usage of the SKOS
Core Vocabulary, for readers who already have a basic understanding of
RDF concepts.

The 'SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification' gives a reference-style
(Continue reading)

Michael Scudder | 9 Jun 05:12 2005
Picon
Picon

faceted classification resources online


I've assembled a collection of links to faceted classification resources at:

http://del.icio.us/mscudder/faceted

Regards,
Michael

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EpW3eD/3MnJAA/cosFAA/0bmwlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

----------
Thanks for playing. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/facetedclassification/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    facetedclassification-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

(Continue reading)

Marcel van Mackelenbergh | 21 Jun 17:49 2005
Picon

Grokker

Did you know that Grokker's interface also follows a faceted
classification? You notice this when you move your mouse pointer over
one of the 'balls'. When  you do a mouse over, some of the other 'balls'
light up. This means that the same page (ball) also occurs in these
other groups. Have a look.
http://www.grokker.com/

I am not saying I am recommending Grokker. The search result is
impressive, the interface is nice but it gives you little control over
the settings. 

Marcel

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----------
Thanks for playing. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/facetedclassification/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    facetedclassification-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

IvyGrad91 | 24 Jun 15:37 2005
Picon

Ontology vs. taxonomy

Can we please have a discussion thread about the meaning and 
application of taxonomies and ontologies?

As is normal in the course of discussion, the terminology can become 
muddy.

Many thanks,

MJB Indexing Service

----------
Thanks for playing. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/facetedclassification/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    facetedclassification-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

David Riecks | 24 Jun 16:24 2005

Re: Ontology vs. taxonomy


> Can we please have a discussion thread about the meaning and 
> application of taxonomies and ontologies?
> 
> As is normal in the course of discussion, the terminology can become 
> muddy.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> MJB Indexing Service

MJB:

I've gathered a number of articles on my controlled vocabulary website 
that attempt to tackle this subject. 

http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/links.html

You might want to check the ones labeled, "Woody Pidcock gives his 
explantion about the differences between, 'a vocabulary, a taxonomy, a 
thesaurus, an ontology, and a meta-model.'"

He seems to believe that an ontology can take several forms, of which 
a controlled vocabulary would be one subset. 

The Boxes and Arrows site has a good article about Controlled 
Vocabularies and ontologies are mentioned. See the article at:
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/what_is_a_controlled_vocabulary.
php
 (watch out for the line returns)
(Continue reading)

Claudio Gnoli | 27 Jun 14:28 2005
Picon

Re: Ontology vs. taxonomy

I advice you on this paper by an author belonging to the
excellent English tradition in information science:

Thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies : an etymological note / Alan
Gilchrist = Journal of documentation. vol 59 : 2003. n 1. p 7-18

Abstract: The amount of work to be done in rendering the digital
information space more efficient and effective has attracted a wide
range of disciplines which, in turn, has given rise to a degree of
confusion in the terminology applied to information problems. This
note seeks to shed some light on the three terms thesauri, taxonomies
and ontologies as they are currently being used by, among others,
information scientists, AI practitioners, and those working on the
foundations of the semantic Web. The paper is not a review of the
techniques themselves.

Personally, I tend to think roughly that taxonomies only include
hierarchical relations (A is a kind of B), while ontologies also
include any other kind of relations (A is husband of B, A is
singer of song B, ...).

----------
Thanks for playing. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/facetedclassification/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    facetedclassification-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
(Continue reading)

Barczak, M. J. | 27 Jun 16:22 2005
Picon

Re: Digest Number 209

I think this article says a lot about the state of
ontology/classification/taxonomy today in light of the
evolution of Internet collab groups:

http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html

MJBarczak

--- facetedclassification <at> yahoogroups.com wrote:

> There are 2 messages in this issue.
> 
> Topics in this digest:
> 
>       1. Ontology vs. taxonomy
>            From: "IvyGrad91" <mjbarczak <at> yahoo.com>
>       2. Re: Ontology vs. taxonomy
>            From: "David Riecks" <david <at> riecks.com>
> 
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Message: 1         
>    Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:37:23 -0000
>    From: "IvyGrad91" <mjbarczak <at> yahoo.com>
> Subject: Ontology vs. taxonomy
> 
(Continue reading)

Phil Murray | 27 Jun 17:54 2005

RE: Ontology vs. taxonomy

It does seem unconscionable that the field of "knowledge organization" (my
preferred term for all varieties of classification systems) lacks a shared
definition of these two terms.

I think we're *close* to agreement on "taxonomy" ... maybe.

Claudio's succinct description of "taxonony" -- "taxonomies only include
hierarchical relations (A is a kind of B)" -- might be sufficient. But
shouldn't we also include whole-part relationships as another very
fundamental application of taxonomies?

Claudio's definition of taxonomy, I think, implies the absence of
polyhierarchical relationships among concepts and therefore excludes most
Yahoo-like directories. That would be a good thing from a terminological
perspective.

Not surprisingly, the term taxonomy is regularly abused in business
implementations. It can mean anything, but the typical "corporate taxonomy"
probably looks like a Yahoo-style directory.

The use of the term "ontology" to describe knowledge-organization schemas in
enterprises is extraordinarily and unnecessarily sloppy. The motivation for
this usage is clearly, "My buzzword is slicker than your buzzword." The
whiff of a fresh scientific connection (to Artificial Intelligence), it
seems, is thought to score more points for you than the rather bookish term
"taxonomy."

In 1993, Tom Gruber, a distinguished contributor to the field of Artificial
Intelligence (AI), defined ontology as follows: "An ontology is an explicit
specification of a conceptualization. The term is borrowed from philosophy,
(Continue reading)

Eric Scheid | 28 Jun 03:23 2005
Picon

Re: Ontology vs. taxonomy

On 28/6/05 1:54 AM, "Phil Murray" <pmurray <at> KMconnection.com> wrote:

> Claudio's succinct description of "taxonony" -- "taxonomies only include
> hierarchical relations (A is a kind of B)" -- might be sufficient. But
> shouldn't we also include whole-part relationships as another very
> fundamental application of taxonomies?

Some implementations of hierarchical taxonomies allow for three classes of
BT/NT ...

BroaderTermPartative / NarrowerTermPartative (BTP / NTP) -- denotes that the
broader/narrower relationship is with the sense that A is a part of B. For
example: a hard drive is a part of a computer, spanner is a NTP of toolbox.

BroaderTermGeneric / NarrowerTermGeneric (BTG / NTG) -- denotes that the
broader/narrower relationship is with the sense that the broader term is a
more generic class or name for the narrower terms. Rats are a narrower term
of the more generic term rodents.

roaderTermInstance / NarrowerTermInstance (BTI / NTI) -- denotes that the
narrower term is an instance or example of the broader term. "Cinderella" is
an NTI of "fairy tales". Instance terms typically do not have any narrower
terms themselves.

e.

----------
Thanks for playing. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

(Continue reading)

Claudio Gnoli | 28 Jun 15:38 2005
Picon

RE: Ontology vs. taxonomy

Hi Phil, it's good to hear from you again.

""" Claudio's succinct description of "taxonony" -- "taxonomies only include
hierarchical relations (A is a kind of B)" -- might be sufficient. But
shouldn't we also include whole-part relationships as another very
fundamental application of taxonomies?
"""

Right, as it is Eric's information about the three kinds on BT/NT. 
Whole-part relationship is considered as a kind of hierarchical 
relationship, in the KO theory by the Classification Research Group. Derek 
Austin also introduced for PRECIS a _quasi-generic relationship_, an 
example of it being potatoes as part of a meal: they can occasionally be 
such, but their basic definition is not this, rather they essentially are a 
kind of plant.

""" Claudio's definition of taxonomy, I think, implies the absence of 
polyhierarchical relationships among concepts
"""

Yes.

""" and therefore excludes most Yahoo-like directories. """

Well, I saw cross-references in Yahoo marked with the " <at> " symbol as 
marginal, like the "see also" cross-references in library subject, the 
basic structure still being monohierarchical. But I agree that this could 
be discussed, e.g. in Open directory they are not even marked as 
cross-references by a special symbol, but appear as common classes, 
although the status menus at the top of each page (those of the kind 
(Continue reading)


Gmane