|
cc Protege OWL forum
Antoinett,
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:
<Quote>
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?
At
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
|