Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TaxoCoP] "Parametrics" related to taxonomy

Expand Messages
  • Ari Wackernah
    Tanya, maybe I got the parametrics part wrong--that s just what I sort of remembered, so I m not surprised that you haven t heard it. I m just surprised that
    Message 1 of 44 , Apr 5, 2007
      Tanya, maybe I got the "parametrics" part wrong--that's just what I sort of remembered, so I'm not surprised that you haven't heard it.

      I'm just surprised that there isn't more information on this on the "Net.  Is parametric browsing sort of a buzzword?  What distinguishes it from facet browsing?

      Thanks for the willpowerinfo link.


      Tanya Rabourn <tanya@...> wrote:
      Ari Wackernah wrote:
      > I had a conversation with a library consultant recently who used
      > the word "parametrics" when she was talking about searching and
      > browsing. I asked her to explain what she meant because it was
      > Greek to me. Her definition sort of sounded like faceted
      > classification
      Don't think I've ever heard the term "parametrics" but definitely
      parametric browsing. You might find this useful:
      http://www.willpowe rinfo.co. uk/glossary. htm
      Under "Parametric Searching"

      > This type of search is for concepts that occur within one or more
      > subfacets of a single facet, e.g. narrower terms of wine in a
      > "materials" facet grouped under the node labels (wine by colour)
      > and (wine by alcohol content). In some systems it is possible to
      > search for a range of values rather than just for specific values.
      > It is to be distinguished from searches for compound concepts which
      > may be made up of concepts from different facets, such as wine from
      > a "materials" facet combined with red colour and alcohol content
      > from a "properties" facet.


      Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
      in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel
      to find your fit.

    • Phil Murray
      Wow, Lisa. That s a good one. Enough meat in those slides for a full-semester course. Among many other things, I like Obrst s distinction between weak and
      Message 44 of 44 , Apr 16, 2007
        Wow, Lisa.
        That's a good one. Enough meat in those slides for a full-semester course.
        Among many other things, I like Obrst's distinction between "weak" and "strong" taxonomies.

        From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lisa Colvin
        Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 1:06 PM
        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] Nomeclature - ontologies

        Hi everyone,

        Great discussion! Ontolog, an ontology community of practice, issued a questionnaire to understand how people use and understand the word “ontology” which will be discussed at the upcoming Ontology Summit as part of NIST interoperability week (http://ontolog. cim3.net/ cgi-bin/wiki. pl?OntologySummi t2007). There have been many discussions in the group as to what constitutes an ontology.

        In my experience, I’ve found it best to use the minimum appropriate level of knowledge representation language that is necessary for completeness and extensibility. The more expressive the language, the greater ability you have to define a more precise semantics. However, creating an ontology in a more expressive language is more difficult to maintain from a resource perspective and also may have challenges with respect to computability.

        The best way I’ve found to express the ontology continuum (from taxonomies through logical theories) is along the axis of semantic expressivity as described by Leo Obrst (Mitre). You can find an overview presentation under the title “Ontology Spectrum, Semantic Models”(ontolog.cim3. net/.../presenta tion/LeoObrst_ 20060112/ OntologySpectrum SemanticModels- -LeoObrst_ 20060112. ppt) In particular, slide 9. This makes sense to me as an ontologist, but I’m curious as to whether this resonates with the Taxonomy community. (disclosure – I used to work for Leo.)

        Best regards,


        :::Lisa Dawn Colvin, Ontologist:: :

        From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com [mailto: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com ] On Behalf Of Phil Murray
        Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:04 AM
        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
        Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] Nomeclature

        Sowa is one of those people whose work you discover and then write a note to yourself that reads something like, "Find more stuff by this guy." Same for Guarino and McGuinness.

        Thanks for the reminder. I'll definitely get his book.

        You can find some of his more recent comments with a Google search that includes Sowa "semantic web" "old fashioned". As someone who has been involved in hypertext since 1986 and started learning about SGML in 1987, I am sympathetic with many of his views.

        Although I'm a big fan of RDF, one of the questions I have posed explicitly to our development team is, "What limitations does RDF impose on our tools for gathering, representing, integrating, and managing knowledge?"


        Phil Murray

        Knowledge Architect

        Aelera Corp.

        From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com [mailto: TaxoCoP@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Bob Doyle
        Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 3:28 PM
        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
        Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Nomeclature

        Hi Phil,

        Very nice article with a good historical perspective. But remember that the Semantic Web and Web Ontology Language (OWL) still lie in the future for Smith and Welty.

        Have you read John Sowa's book, Knowledge Representation? It was published about the same time as this article (2000).

        Sowa provides a similar philosophical background and his work owes a lot to C.S. Peirce.



        On 4/13/07, Phil Murray <phil.murray@ aelera.com> wrote:

        The best thing I have read recently on ontologies -- and I think ontologies are highly relevant to this discussion because they represent part of the continuum of knowledge-represent ation systems -- is Barry Smith and Christopher Welty, " Ontology: Towards a New Synthesis" (2001)  http://www.cs. vassar.edu/ faculty/welty/ papers/fois- intro.pdf .

        Smith and Welty's delightfully brief and cheeky look at the origins of computer ontologies has the added benefit of pointing out that several different domains have been forced to turn to knowledge-organizat ion systems to solve information management problems.  This is not "the revenge of the librarians" (Peter Morville) but the inevitable consequence of the proliferation of computers and free global self-publishing.

        Phil Murray

        Knowledge Architect

        Aelera Corp.

        From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Ron Rice
        Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:41 PM
        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
        Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Nomeclature

        For me, hierarchy is absolutely fundamental to my understanding of taxonomy. I'm developing a product classification scheme for an e-commerce system. My core vocabulary consists of terms arranged in a parent-child hierarchy. There are "type of" (genus-species) relationships and "part of" (whole part) relationships. Sometimes a parent has two distinct sets of children--one set of "type" children, and another set of "part" children. This is the mission-critical part of my taxonomy.

        Associative relations are secondary in importance. These are the "use for" and "related to" relationships among terms. It's my understanding that the addition of associative relationships is what turns a "taxonomy" into a "thesaurus". Based on some of the responses in this thread, I'm beginning to think my understanding is totally wrong. My original point was that I use the word "taxonomy" to describe the combined hierarchical and associative relationships, even though I know this means "thesaurus". But now I'm even more confused! :-)

        Jame M. mentioned "ontologies" . I agree that this is a totally different beast, not to be confused with taxonomy. I use the term "ontology" to mean the rules (grammar) for using a taxonomy in a specific application. My taxonomy is system-agnostic. The functional implementations are ontologies. Thoughts?


        This e-mail message and its attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information and are for the sole use of the designated recipient(s) . If you are not a designated recipient of this message, please do not read, copy, use, or disclose this message or its attachments; and notify the sender by replying to this message, and delete or destroy all copies of this message and attachments in all media. Thank you.

        Bob Doyle
        Editor In Chief, CMS Review - http://www.cmsrevie w.com
        Former Technology Advisor, CM Pros - http://www.cmprofes sionals.org/ membership/ cm-profiles/ bob-doyle
        Contributing Editor, EContent Magazine -
        http://www.econtent mag.com/About/ AboutAuthor. aspx?AuthorID= 155
        President and CEO, skyBuilders - http://www.skybuild ers.com
        77 Huron Avenue
        Cambridge , MA 02138
        Tel: +1 617-876-5676   Skype:bobdoyle

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.