[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] faceted classification like UDEF?

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: wtd@xxxxxxxxx, protege-owl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:03:27 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGCEKAGPAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc Protege OWL forum
I posted your note "from a library scientist" at
just because the ability to edit and formate is nicer (when done by hand - as I do).  And other forums can make references to this discussion.
Specifically we feel that your point was that,  as you said:
There is little or no need to deal with the complications inherent in organizing the world of knowledge, and the system can be as precise as necessary to do what is needed.
<end Quote>
Our recent discussion at ONTAC has been about the new Mitre report..
In conjection iwth this discussion, I made reference to a US (World) Customs' Harmonized Tariff Schedule as being organized into ten (large) trees...  and having some type of non-standand association between elements across the trees.  Facits is a good name of these associations - which tend to be interpretive and related to function of something.  Thus facits allow a real time change of context. 
So specifically, the notion of facit comes up in the library science (infromation classification) domain precisely in those areas that are not formalizable to the extent that the supporters of First Order Logics Over Everything , FOL-OE   : ) ,   would wish.  (I hope I have said this properly.)  As most know, I am taking the position that logic should be standardized separately from well organized controlled vocabulary. 
Logic over UDEF is desired, with exceptions were there would be a facit.  Right?
the author, William Denton said (quoting Barbara Kwasnick)
"notion of facets rests on the belief that there is more than one way to view the world, and that even those classifications that are viewed as stable are in fact provisional and dynamic. The challenge is to build classifications that are flexible and can accommodate new phenomena."
and again
"Kwasnick (1999) identifies four classificatory structures: hierarchies, trees, paradigms, and facets. When one of the first three works, use it. If some other organizing principle, such as a timeline or ordering by size, works, use it. The design of the classification must follow its purpose, and different things can be classified in different ways for different purposes, requiring different structures. If the others are insufficient, look to facets. "
This is precisely what has occured with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.
I do not know if the Protege notion of facit follows this kind of paradigm?
Does anyone in that forum know?  I will post the answer(s) at

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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>