Gary, (01)
The ISO 11179 is sufficiently vague regarding what it refers to as
classification to allow you to apply it to different kinds of structures. We
are following the ISO 11179 standard in constructing our metadata repository and
managing our master data stores. Our combined set of master data stores begins
to resemble our ontology when they are applied. (02)
However, the classification section of ISO 11179 is not sufficiently developed
to allow us to follow it very strictly. We believe that the ISO 11179 standard
could benefit from further elaboration of taxonomic structures, specifically
rings, hierarchies, faceted, network and flat. If ISO 11179 were further
developed, it would suffice for describing and managing ontologies. A shift in
thinking, though, will need to take place to ensure that we manage the values
not only of the nodes in these structures, but also of the values of the links.
We are now focusing on identifying and formalizing the values of the links
(relationships) among our entities. Nodes can represent anything you need to
represent, including contexts. (03)
Best regards,
Denise (Bedford)
World Bank (04)
"Gary
Berg-Cross"
<gary.berg-cros To
s@xxxxxxxx> <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cc
ontac-forum-bou
nces@xxxxxxxxxx Subject
.net [ontac-forum] RE: Questions and thoughts
on using a 11179 registry for
ontology registration
10/25/2005
11:17 PM (05)
Please respond
to
ONTAC-WG
General
Discussion
<ontac-forum@co
lab.cim3.net> (06)
Denise, (07)
There were 2 questions I had regarding the 11179 registry for ontology
registration. This gives me a chance to expand on the first which was the
initial question. I asked whether the functionality of a 11179 registry for
data could be applied to ontologies. You proposed doing this and Frank also
suggested this. But to me ontologies are much more complex and might include
modules, lattices, microtheories and other structures. So I wasn't sure how
easy the functionality of an 11179 nregistry might scale to ontology "library"
requirements. It would be nice to know your thoughts on this. Perhaps a
discussion of the mangement capabilities of the NCI system for such things. (08)
The 2nd concerns the question you discussed in your response and my comments
were not based on what you had said the first messag, but some questions I had
about the relation of the "information" in an 11179 registry and an ontology and
how some might use it. Your response clarifies at least your position. (09)
>I?m not sure what the question was? You said you wanted to know something
about the top level concepts that >categorize and organize the data elements?? (010)
>I don?t think that Frank meant that the ontology would be built up from data
elements?I could be wrong but we >have worked closely on this whole notion of
linking concepts to data elements based on the NCI model? (011)
>The whole idea is NOT to define data elements in isolation ?. And not to define
the ontology from the data >elements?but to use the ontology as the basis for
the naming an defining the data elements?.. (012)
It is easy for somone to think of the data elements as some of the nodes in the
ontology. You've clarified that you don't see it that way, but they the
ontology is used to "define" them. So it seems like a one way use. So would it
be fair to say that we can't use the the 11179 registries as they exist without
an ontology as a stepping stone to an ontology? (013)
The reason that I ask is that it seems like models like the HL7 Reference
Information Model are built out of entities and data element attributes which
are considered by some as at least a Domain Model. Barry Smith has pointed out
ontological weaknesses in the HL7 model, but that in itself implies that it has
been taken by some to be a form of an ontology... (014)
Gary Berg-Cross
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (015)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (016)
|