| To: | <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
|---|---|
| From: | "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx> | 
| Date: | Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:57:28 -0400 | 
| Message-id: | <330E3C69AFABAE45BD91B28F80BE32C905625C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
| Denise B and 
Denise W Yes, I 
understand that the ISO 11179 is sufficiently “open” (or as you (DB) said, 
vague) regarding what it refers to as classification to allow you to apply it to 
different kinds of structures.  
 As you (DB) 
said “  Our combined set of master 
data stores begins to resemble our ontology when they are applied. 
 “   
 While the 
openness has some good aspects it can mean that people will come up with 
different data objects within which the data elements exist and different data 
classifications to organize the data objects.  The approach, which also include 
“subject areas”  seems to me like a 
weak ontology and thus creation of a good, general ontology is needed. This is 
what has been discussed in the context of the DRM which builds on 11179 with the 
object, classification, subject area hierarchy.    So I agree 
with your statement that,   “We 
believe that the ISO 11179 standard could benefit 
from further elaboration of taxonomic structures, 
specifically rings, 
hierarchies, faceted, network and flat.” I think that 
many might also want to agree with your statement  “If ISO 11179 
were further developed, it would suffice for describing and managing ontologies. 
“ This is the 
type of bottom up approach I mentioned to Denis W that I was concerned 
with.   It’s not that it couldn’t be done, it’s 
just that I think it hides some of the harder issues we will face in building a 
good ontology.  So it may be an 
ingredient to our approach and something we can leverage, but we should not 
expect it to be an easy linear process.  
One might worry that we are building silos of objects, classes and 
subject areas that we will later have to break down and organize thru 
ontological analysis. Regards, Gary 
Berg-Cross EM&I BMMP Data 
Strategy _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) | 
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> | 
|---|---|---|
| 
 | ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: [ontac-forum] COSMO Working Group -- sign up!, Thompson, John A | 
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [ontac-forum] More discussion and thoughts on the openness and value of 11179, Warzel, Denise (NIH/NCI) | 
| Previous by Thread: | [ontac-forum] RE: Questions and thoughts on using a 11179 registry for ontology registration, Gary Berg-Cross | 
| Next by Thread: | RE: [ontac-forum] More discussion and thoughts on the openness and value of 11179, Warzel, Denise (NIH/NCI) | 
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |