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

Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

Expand Messages
  • Adrian Walker
    Hi Lisa, You wrote While there are some accepted standards for ontology modeling practice (RDFS/OWL), there are multiple knowledge representation languages
    Message 1 of 21 , Jan 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Lisa,

      You wrote

      While there are some accepted standards for ontology modeling practice (RDFS/OWL), there are multiple knowledge representation languages which can be used to express any 'ontology'.

      Yes, indeed.  Here's a quote from Ed Barkmeyer of NIST:

      'What makes written knowledge an "ontology" is that the language has a grammar and an interpretation of the grammatical constructs that is suitable for automated reasoning.  If most of the desired reasoning depends on your interpretations of constructs you introduced, that can't happen unless you build the engine.'

                                 Cheers,  -- Adrian

      Internet Business Logic
      A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable English over SQL and RDF
      Online at www.reengineeringllc.com    Shared use is free   No advertisements

      Adrian Walker
      Reengineering


      On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:19 AM, lisa colvin <lisacolvin@...> wrote:
       

      Thanks for the lively discussion. It's exciting to see these ideas coming together.

      While there are some accepted standards for ontology modeling practice (RDFS/OWL), there are multiple knowledge representation languages which can be used to express any 'ontology'. Typically the more expressive the language, the more expensive it is computationally. So, you need to pick the representation language which best fits your needs. If you're not building a model to drive some sort of expert system or related capabilities,  a simpler knowledge representation scheme is probably better.

      However, one reason people use ontology languages in general is when there is a need for strong semantics which define the relationships/ context. Even if you don't want to build an expert/recommendation/QA/NL-based system, you can still use a more formal ontology language as just a pure specification language.

      So, is a faceted classification scheme an ontology? Some would say 'yes, if it uses an ontology language to express it'. Others might say it's not if you're not expressing/defining any inheritance relations. Overall, it probably doesn't matter what you call it as long as the semantics are rich enough to solve whatever problem you needed solving.

      There are fundamental differences to how the various disciplines approach information modeling. What I've found most helpful in working with people in another discipline is to be very explicit on how basic terms (like "term" :) , "class", "instance", "inference") are used in expressing the model that you're sharing. The idea of "inference", for example, can vary widely between an expert system developer and an OO developer. If these terms aren't described explicitly and used consistently, people get confused.

      I also found that defining the capabilities and mathematical relationship distinctions between "controlled vocabulary list", "synonym rings/synsets", taxonomy", "thesaurus", "ontology", "desciption logics",etc.  is really only interesting to taxonomists/ontologists and other curious people like us. :)

      :) Lisa


      On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:
       

      Well I was just sitting back and enjoying the conversation, Bob. But since you ask, I 'll start with a comment that Matt made early on, that there might be usability issues with reusing structures from data models in taxonomies, even though in principle such reuse makes sense.


      I think there's a tendency for us to get very entity focused in these discussions and definitions and stop there. There's a good reason for this. The common ground for data models, ontologies, taxonomies is their need to establish relatively stable entities at the very least; they each do slightly different different things around the language referring to those entities, and they diverge in the type and extent of work around establishing and defining relationships and maybe inference-generating capabilities (which some taxonomy forms can support as well as ontologies). But the entities are the core point of reference.

      But Matt's comment reminds us that it's important to remember that data models, taxonomies and ontologies are at the end of the day just instruments, and to understand the instrument is not just about understanding the entities it manipulates, but how the instrument is used, and for what purpose. 

      The design of a tool is driven by its functionality, not its components. DM-T-Os serve related purposes via different means and in different contexts. There are important differences in the amount of human vs machine processing expected or served. As Matt suggests master data management is one way of getting a handle on how they can inter-operate. But fixing an entity and definition in one space (eg a data model) does not unquestionably qualify it for use in another space (eg a taxonomy).

      I think we also assume that usability is only really relevant at the taxonomy level. In my book I suggested that taxonomies are for humans and ontologies are for machines, which risks feeding that assumption. But at the end of the day, the rationale for using any of these instruments whether data models, taxonomies or ontologies, is that they must emerge into human use in some way. It's just that for DMs and Os machine processes provide different opportunities and constraints from human ones. If we can't see the pathway to human use (which is where some of the visionary talk on ontologies falls down, I feel) then they risk floating away into philosophical (or organisational) abstractions. I think this is where a lot of the hard wrestling work needs to be done, to resolve relationships between the instruments, preserve a common core where possible, and reflect the context-driven needs at organisational and user levels.

      This is all very abstract still... I think what would be useful would be some good clear cases where we can see the relationships in specific contexts.

      P

      Patrick Lambe

      website: www.straitsknowledge.com

      Have you seen our KM Method Cards or
      Organisation Culture Cards?  





      On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Bob Bater wrote:


      Heather, Gabriel, John, Keith & anyone else who's following this thread:

       

      I'm still feeling my way around these kinds of issues (have been for years), and have no hard-and-fast solutions. However, I do have some 'working hypotheses' which I find to be helpful. I'll refer to them as I respond to a few points made by John, Keith and Gabriel.

       

      Firstly, John is quite right in pointing out that both data models and taxonomies are necessarily bounded. Who'd want to undertake a data model or a taxonomy of *everything*? Well, I suppose Melville Dewey, UDC, LCC have all attempted it, with varying degrees of success. But that's a topic for another day. In an organizational context, both data models and taxonomies need to be restricted to a specific domain, if only for practical reasons.

       

      John also says:

      > For example, if all of the 'entities' that a data modeller wanted to use were already classified by a taxonomist and resided in a master data management inventory, then a sort of symbiotic relationship could exist between the necessarily narrow application of the data and the universal 'connectivity' of a fully faceted business vocabulary. <

      I see this as the role of the 'over-arching ontology which expresses the context of both data model and taxonomy', to quote my own post. The ontology, developed first, ensures that both data modeller and taxonomist are singing from the same hymn sheet. That will also prove of great benefit to data warehouse developers, document managers, records managers and information architects, further down the line.

       

      Keith says that he finds taxonomies are regarded as:

      > "THE solution" rather than being viewed as "A solution" or part of a larger system of models and decision-making depending on the nature of the enterprise <

      Taxonomies have been over-egged. Many in the field think 'taxonomy' first and context later. IMHO bad! Build the ontology first, then do your data modelling. Then you'll have done a PoC (Proof of Concept) for the domain - identifying the entities which are important, their important attributes (for the data modellers) and a first lead-in to the language people use to refer to them (for the taxonomists). Using both the ontology and the data model, define the key attributes which different communities regard as important to them when they want to access and process information. That gives you a metadata application profile for each community which can be aggregated into a corporate metadata profile. Only then do you look at each attribute in each profile and decide how it is to be populated. Sometimes, it will be an /ad hoc/ value; sometimes the value will be drawn from a fixed, flat list; sometimes the value will be drawn from an organized, maintained hierarchy of values - a taxonomy. For me, the metadata profile comes first. A taxonomy only becomes relevant if a metadata element requires it.

       

      Gabriel said:

      > (I said  "ontology / taxonomy" in the above because I'm not clear myself whether our CM does satisfy a full definition of "ontology"; for example as yet we have no mechanisms for making inferences). <

       

      My 'working hypothesis' in this respect does not include the need for ontologies to enable the making of inferences. That is a requirement of strict 'ontologies' in the Semantic Web sense. For me, ontologies provide the context for ensuring that information and knowledge management structures and systems are coherent and interoperable.

       

      Keith said:

      > Getting at just where taxonomy, data modeling, and ontology specification begin, end, and overlap is really welcome.  <

       

      Again, my 'working hypothesis' is that ontologies come first, specifying the entities involved in an activity system, and their relationships. Data modellers will want to define the attributes of each entity and to characterize their relationships more rigorously, to enable their capture in the highly structured world of the DBMS, focused on logical consistency.

       

      Information managers, on the other hand, are less data-focused and more user-focused, concerned with linking entities and their key attributes to the concepts - and the terms which represent those concepts - employed by workers. So - where appropriate - they build a taxonomy proposing terms to be used for those concepts, reflecting the taxonomic relationships inherent in any domain - generic, partitive, instantial. While the taxonomy can establish the entities (concepts) involved, and their relationships, it cannot dictate the terms which people use to refer to those concepts. Provision is made therefore for variance in terminology by developing a thesaurus, which allows people to search using their native term, and for back-end software to translate this into the 'preferred term' established by the taxonomy.

       

      Hope that stimulates some thoughts. Meanwhile, where's Patrick Lambe in this thread? Patrick, I'm sure you have some informative views on these issues. Please join us.

       

      Regards,

       

      Bob





    • cheriewagner@comcast.net
      In reading this I wanted to express my appreciation for the time and knowledge that all of you on this list share…I’m a behind-the-scenes lurker, so by way
      Message 2 of 21 , Jan 6, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        In reading this I wanted to express my appreciation for the time and knowledge that all of you on this list share…I’m a behind-the-scenes lurker, so by way of brief introduction I worked in the content management and taxonomy space for many years and I am working now in different areas.  I know that I am quickly falling behind in what is a rapidly developing and ever-changing information modeling arena, so the following comment may seem obvious or archaic or just plain off!…but in reading this exchange it makes me think of fractals or fractal geometry and how it helps to predict the systematic chaos of nature.  Perhaps one could apply the concepts around fractal geometry to information or information modeling?  or maybe it would just result in some very cool geometric shapes... J

         

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

         

        Best,

        Cherie

         

         

        From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John O'Gorman
        Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:14 PM
        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

         

         

        I'd like to introduce one more abstract into the mix, followed by a concrete example as per Patrick's excellent suggestion. As Lisa mentioned, the mathematical subtleties of taxonomies and data models and such are of little interest outside groups like ours, but the truth is that this line of inquiry is predicated on a flat geometry. The digital universe - owing primarily to its binary origins - is comprised of only two dimensions. Manifestation of this singular truth is everywhere and in spite of some very clever attempts to mitigate the flatness of things, we still have folder structures, naming conventions, hierarchies and super- and sub-types. This is not to suggest that these inventions are not and have not been useful, but we need something more elegant to save ourselves from drowning in a sea of digits and bytes.

         

        Take search...enter 'cricket' and get back two point seven million hits on the sport, the insect, the ethical construct (as in "not cricket") and Buddy Holly. Because humans live in a multi-faceted universe and computers in a flat one, reconciling the semantics (i.e. the gap between n-dimensions and two) is up to us. What is needed is a new 'geometry' of information that simutaneously incorporates more precision and recognizes the existing symmetry of information.

         

        Concrete example: In programming the stupid computer must be 'told' what a string is and how it is going to be used. So a given string may be a variable, a global variable, an object or a method depending on the context. To avoid 'collision', the same string may not be used in any way other than the one for which it has been declared. In the context of the 'cricket' search a similar approach may be taken, albeit with a twist. For every unique concept behind the string 'cricket' a unique identifier is declared. Now we have something like: 1234 - cricket - sport; 3456 - cricket - status;  4567 - cricket - insect; 6789 - cricket - member of Buddy Holly's band.

         

        As Bob correctly points out, individual data models, taxonomies and ontologies (DM-T-O) are by necessity fairly narrow in scope. That's typically why taxonomies tend to break and data models fail with the introduction of information classes from a wider scope. Wouldn't it be interesting, though if in spite of these focused artifacts their individual members already had a declarative that uniquely identified not only what they represent but also what class they are in and how they can be connected to other patterns of use? In other words, have a new geometry built in to the vocabulary values to encourage reuse at a very granular level.

         

        I can expand on the 'patterns' concept in a separate post (like Lisa says, I risk being the only one interested) but for now, think of any formally constructed language and think of the universal patterns used to exchange information. There must be an agreement about the what and the how, and there must also be an understanding about the context and construction, and there is always semantics. A taxonomy (as would a data model) become a new pattern in a given language using existing elements.

         

         

         

         

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: lisa colvin [mailto:lisacolvin@ gmail.com]
        Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 09:19 AM
        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
        Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

         

        Thanks for the lively discussion. It's exciting to see these ideas coming together.

        While there are some accepted standards for ontology modeling practice (RDFS/OWL), there are multiple knowledge representation languages which can be used to express any 'ontology'. Typically the more expressive the language, the more expensive it is computationally. So, you need to pick the representation language which best fits your needs. If you're not building a model to drive some sort of expert system or related capabilities,  a simpler knowledge representation scheme is probably better.

        However, one reason people use ontology languages in general is when there is a need for strong semantics which define the relationships/ context. Even if you don't want to build an expert/recommendati on/QA/NL- based system, you can still use a more formal ontology language as just a pure specification language.

        So, is a faceted classification scheme an ontology? Some would say 'yes, if it uses an ontology language to express it'. Others might say it's not if you're not expressing/defining any inheritance relations. Overall, it probably doesn't matter what you call it as long as the semantics are rich enough to solve whatever problem you needed solving.

        There are fundamental differences to how the various disciplines approach information modeling. What I've found most helpful in working with people in another discipline is to be very explicit on how basic terms (like "term" :) , "class", "instance", "inference") are used in expressing the model that you're sharing. The idea of "inference", for example, can vary widely between an expert system developer and an OO developer. If these terms aren't described explicitly and used consistently, people get confused.

        I also found that defining the capabilities and mathematical relationship distinctions between "controlled vocabulary list", "synonym rings/synsets" , taxonomy", "thesaurus", "ontology", "desciption logics",etc.  is really only interesting to taxonomists/ ontologists and other curious people like us. :)

        :) Lisa

        On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Lambe <plambe@straitsknowl edge.com> wrote:

         

        Well I was just sitting back and enjoying the conversation, Bob. But since you ask, I 'll start with a comment that Matt made early on, that there might be usability issues with reusing structures from data models in taxonomies, even though in principle such reuse makes sense.

         

        I think there's a tendency for us to get very entity focused in these discussions and definitions and stop there. There's a good reason for this. The common ground for data models, ontologies, taxonomies is their need to establish relatively stable entities at the very least; they each do slightly different different things around the language referring to those entities, and they diverge in the type and extent of work around establishing and defining relationships and maybe inference-generatin g capabilities (which some taxonomy forms can support as well as ontologies). But the entities are the core point of reference.

         

        But Matt's comment reminds us that it's important to remember that data models, taxonomies and ontologies are at the end of the day just instruments, and to understand the instrument is not just about understanding the entities it manipulates, but how the instrument is used, and for what purpose. 

         

        The design of a tool is driven by its functionality, not its components. DM-T-Os serve related purposes via different means and in different contexts. There are important differences in the amount of human vs machine processing expected or served. As Matt suggests master data management is one way of getting a handle on how they can inter-operate. But fixing an entity and definition in one space (eg a data model) does not unquestionably qualify it for use in another space (eg a taxonomy).

         

        I think we also assume that usability is only really relevant at the taxonomy level. In my book I suggested that taxonomies are for humans and ontologies are for machines, which risks feeding that assumption. But at the end of the day, the rationale for using any of these instruments whether data models, taxonomies or ontologies, is that they must emerge into human use in some way. It's just that for DMs and Os machine processes provide different opportunities and constraints from human ones. If we can't see the pathway to human use (which is where some of the visionary talk on ontologies falls down, I feel) then they risk floating away into philosophical (or organisational) abstractions. I think this is where a lot of the hard wrestling work needs to be done, to resolve relationships between the instruments, preserve a common core where possible, and reflect the context-driven needs at organisational and user levels.

         

        This is all very abstract still... I think what would be useful would be some good clear cases where we can see the relationships in specific contexts.

         

        P

         

        Patrick Lambe

         

        weblog: www.greenchameleon. com

        website: www.straitsknowledg e.com

        book: www.organisingknowl edge.com

         

        Have you seen our KM Method Cards or

        Organisation Culture Cards?  

         

        http://www.straitsk nowledge. com/store/

         

         

         

         

        On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Bob Bater wrote:



         

        Heather, Gabriel, John, Keith & anyone else who's following this thread:

         

        I'm still feeling my way around these kinds of issues (have been for years), and have no hard-and-fast solutions. However, I do have some 'working hypotheses' which I find to be helpful. I'll refer to them as I respond to a few points made by John, Keith and Gabriel.

         

        Firstly, John is quite right in pointing out that both data models and taxonomies are necessarily bounded. Who'd want to undertake a data model or a taxonomy of *everything* ? Well, I suppose Melville Dewey, UDC, LCC have all attempted it, with varying degrees of success. But that's a topic for another day. In an organizational context, both data models and taxonomies need to be restricted to a specific domain, if only for practical reasons.

         

        John also says:

        > For example, if all of the 'entities' that a data modeller wanted to use were already classified by a taxonomist and resided in a master data management inventory, then a sort of symbiotic relationship could exist between the necessarily narrow application of the data and the universal 'connectivity' of a fully faceted business vocabulary. <

        I see this as the role of the 'over-arching ontology which expresses the context of both data model and taxonomy', to quote my own post. The ontology, developed first, ensures that both data modeller and taxonomist are singing from the same hymn sheet. That will also prove of great benefit to data warehouse developers, document managers, records managers and information architects, further down the line.

         

        Keith says that he finds taxonomies are regarded as:

        > "THE solution" rather than being viewed as "A solution" or part of a larger system of models and decision-making depending on the nature of the enterprise <

        Taxonomies have been over-egged. Many in the field think 'taxonomy' first and context later. IMHO bad! Build the ontology first, then do your data modelling. Then you'll have done a PoC (Proof of Concept) for the domain - identifying the entities which are important, their important attributes (for the data modellers) and a first lead-in to the language people use to refer to them (for the taxonomists) . Using both the ontology and the data model, define the key attributes which different communities regard as important to them when they want to access and process information. That gives you a metadata application profile for each community which can be aggregated into a corporate metadata profile. Only then do you look at each attribute in each profile and decide how it is to be populated. Sometimes, it will be an /ad hoc/ value; sometimes the value will be drawn from a fixed, flat list; sometimes the value will be drawn from an organized, maintained hierarchy of values - a taxonomy. For me, the metadata profile comes first. A taxonomy only becomes relevant if a metadata element requires it.

         

        Gabriel said:

        > (I said  "ontology / taxonomy" in the above because I'm not clear myself whether our CM does satisfy a full definition of "ontology"; for example as yet we have no mechanisms for making inferences). <

         

        My 'working hypothesis' in this respect does not include the need for ontologies to enable the making of inferences. That is a requirement of strict 'ontologies' in the Semantic Web sense. For me, ontologies provide the context for ensuring that information and knowledge management structures and systems are coherent and interoperable.

         

        Keith said:

        > Getting at just where taxonomy, data modeling, and ontology specification begin, end, and overlap is really welcome.  <

         

        Again, my 'working hypothesis' is that ontologies come first, specifying the entities involved in an activity system, and their relationships. Data modellers will want to define the attributes of each entity and to characterize their relationships more rigorously, to enable their capture in the highly structured world of the DBMS, focused on logical consistency.

         

        Information managers, on the other hand, are less data-focused and more user-focused, concerned with linking entities and their key attributes to the concepts - and the terms which represent those concepts - employed by workers. So - where appropriate - they build a taxonomy proposing terms to be used for those concepts, reflecting the taxonomic relationships inherent in any domain - generic, partitive, instantial. While the taxonomy can establish the entities (concepts) involved, and their relationships, it cannot dictate the terms which people use to refer to those concepts. Provision is made therefore for variance in terminology by developing a thesaurus, which allows people to search using their native term, and for back-end software to translate this into the 'preferred term' established by the taxonomy.

         

        Hope that stimulates some thoughts. Meanwhile, where's Patrick Lambe in this thread? Patrick, I'm sure you have some informative views on these issues. Please join us.

         

        Regards,

         

        Bob

         

         



         


      • John O'Gorman
        Brilliant, Cherie - absolutely brilliant. ... From: cheriewagner@comcast.net [mailto:cheriewagner@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 12:04 PM To:
        Message 3 of 21 , Jan 6, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Brilliant, Cherie - absolutely brilliant.
           
          -----Original Message-----
          From: cheriewagner@... [mailto:cheriewagner@...]
          Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 12:04 PM
          To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

           

          In reading this I wanted to express my appreciation for the time and knowledge that all of you on this list share…I’m a behind-the-scenes lurker, so by way of brief introduction I worked in the content management and taxonomy space for many years and I am working now in different areas.  I know that I am quickly falling behind in what is a rapidly developing and ever-changing information modeling arena, so the following comment may seem obvious or archaic or just plain off!…but in reading this exchange it makes me think of fractals or fractal geometry and how it helps to predict the systematic chaos of nature.  Perhaps one could apply the concepts around fractal geometry to information or information modeling?  or maybe it would just result in some very cool geometric shapes... J

           

          http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Fractal

          Best,

          Cherie

          From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com [mailto:TaxoCoP@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of John O'Gorman
          Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:14 PM
          To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
          Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

           

          I'd like to introduce one more abstract into the mix, followed by a concrete example as per Patrick's excellent suggestion. As Lisa mentioned, the mathematical subtleties of taxonomies and data models and such are of little interest outside groups like ours, but the truth is that this line of inquiry is predicated on a flat geometry. The digital universe - owing primarily to its binary origins - is comprised of only two dimensions. Manifestation of this singular truth is everywhere and in spite of some very clever attempts to mitigate the flatness of things, we still have folder structures, naming conventions, hierarchies and super- and sub-types. This is not to suggest that these inventions are not and have not been useful, but we need something more elegant to save ourselves from drowning in a sea of digits and bytes.

           

          Take search...enter 'cricket' and get back two point seven million hits on the sport, the insect, the ethical construct (as in "not cricket") and Buddy Holly. Because humans live in a multi-faceted universe and computers in a flat one, reconciling the semantics (i.e. the gap between n-dimensions and two) is up to us. What is needed is a new 'geometry' of information that simutaneously incorporates more precision and recognizes the existing symmetry of information.

          Concrete example: In programming the stupid computer must be 'told' what a string is and how it is going to be used. So a given string may be a variable, a global variable, an object or a method depending on the context. To avoid 'collision', the same string may not be used in any way other than the one for which it has been declared. In the context of the 'cricket' search a similar approach may be taken, albeit with a twist. For every unique concept behind the string 'cricket' a unique identifier is declared. Now we have something like: 1234 - cricket - sport; 3456 - cricket - status;  4567 - cricket - insect; 6789 - cricket - member of Buddy Holly's band.

          As Bob correctly points out, individual data models, taxonomies and ontologies (DM-T-O) are by necessity fairly narrow in scope. That's typically why taxonomies tend to break and data models fail with the introduction of information classes from a wider scope. Wouldn't it be interesting, though if in spite of these focused artifacts their individual members already had a declarative that uniquely identified not only what they represent but also what class they are in and how they can be connected to other patterns of use? In other words, have a new geometry built in to the vocabulary values to encourage reuse at a very granular level.

          I can expand on the 'patterns' concept in a separate post (like Lisa says, I risk being the only one interested) but for now, think of any formally constructed language and think of the universal patterns used to exchange information. There must be an agreement about the what and the how, and there must also be an understanding about the context and construction, and there is always semantics. A taxonomy (as would a data model) become a new pattern in a given language using existing elements.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: lisa colvin [mailto:lisacolvin@ gmail.com]
          Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 09:19 AM
          To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
          Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

           

          Thanks for the lively discussion. It's exciting to see these ideas coming together.

          While there are some accepted standards for ontology modeling practice (RDFS/OWL), there are multiple knowledge representation languages which can be used to express any 'ontology'. Typically the more expressive the language, the more expensive it is computationally. So, you need to pick the representation language which best fits your needs. If you're not building a model to drive some sort of expert system or related capabilities,  a simpler knowledge representation scheme is probably better.

          However, one reason people use ontology languages in general is when there is a need for strong semantics which define the relationships/ context. Even if you don't want to build an expert/recommendati on/QA/NL- based system, you can still use a more formal ontology language as just a pure specification language.

          So, is a faceted classification scheme an ontology? Some would say 'yes, if it uses an ontology language to express it'. Others might say it's not if you're not expressing/defining any inheritance relations. Overall, it probably doesn't matter what you call it as long as the semantics are rich enough to solve whatever problem you needed solving.

          There are fundamental differences to how the various disciplines approach information modeling. What I've found most helpful in working with people in another discipline is to be very explicit on how basic terms (like "term" :) , "class", "instance", "inference") are used in expressing the model that you're sharing. The idea of "inference", for example, can vary widely between an expert system developer and an OO developer. If these terms aren't described explicitly and used consistently, people get confused.

          I also found that defining the capabilities and mathematical relationship distinctions between "controlled vocabulary list", "synonym rings/synsets" , taxonomy", "thesaurus", "ontology", "desciption logics",etc.  is really only interesting to taxonomists/ ontologists and other curious people like us. :)

          :) Lisa

          On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Lambe <plambe@straitsknowl edge.com> wrote:

           

          Well I was just sitting back and enjoying the conversation, Bob. But since you ask, I 'll start with a comment that Matt made early on, that there might be usability issues with reusing structures from data models in taxonomies, even though in principle such reuse makes sense.

          I think there's a tendency for us to get very entity focused in these discussions and definitions and stop there. There's a good reason for this. The common ground for data models, ontologies, taxonomies is their need to establish relatively stable entities at the very least; they each do slightly different different things around the language referring to those entities, and they diverge in the type and extent of work around establishing and defining relationships and maybe inference-generatin g capabilities (which some taxonomy forms can support as well as ontologies). But the entities are the core point of reference.

          But Matt's comment reminds us that it's important to remember that data models, taxonomies and ontologies are at the end of the day just instruments, and to understand the instrument is not just about understanding the entities it manipulates, but how the instrument is used, and for what purpose. 

          The design of a tool is driven by its functionality, not its components. DM-T-Os serve related purposes via different means and in different contexts. There are important differences in the amount of human vs machine processing expected or served. As Matt suggests master data management is one way of getting a handle on how they can inter-operate. But fixing an entity and definition in one space (eg a data model) does not unquestionably qualify it for use in another space (eg a taxonomy).

          I think we also assume that usability is only really relevant at the taxonomy level. In my book I suggested that taxonomies are for humans and ontologies are for machines, which risks feeding that assumption. But at the end of the day, the rationale for using any of these instruments whether data models, taxonomies or ontologies, is that they must emerge into human use in some way. It's just that for DMs and Os machine processes provide different opportunities and constraints from human ones. If we can't see the pathway to human use (which is where some of the visionary talk on ontologies falls down, I feel) then they risk floating away into philosophical (or organisational) abstractions. I think this is where a lot of the hard wrestling work needs to be done, to resolve relationships between the instruments, preserve a common core where possible, and reflect the context-driven needs at organisational and user levels.

          This is all very abstract still... I think what would be useful would be some good clear cases where we can see the relationships in specific contexts.

          P

          Patrick Lambe

          weblog: www.greenchameleon. com

          website: www.straitsknowledg e.com

          book: www.organisingknowl edge.com

          Have you seen our KM Method Cards or

          Organisation Culture Cards?  

          http://www.straitsk nowledge. com/store/

          On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Bob Bater wrote:



          Heather, Gabriel, John, Keith & anyone else who's following this thread:

          I'm still feeling my way around these kinds of issues (have been for years), and have no hard-and-fast solutions. However, I do have some 'working hypotheses' which I find to be helpful. I'll refer to them as I respond to a few points made by John, Keith and Gabriel.

          Firstly, John is quite right in pointing out that both data models and taxonomies are necessarily bounded. Who'd want to undertake a data model or a taxonomy of *everything* ? Well, I suppose Melville Dewey, UDC, LCC have all attempted it, with varying degrees of success. But that's a topic for another day. In an organizational context, both data models and taxonomies need to be restricted to a specific domain, if only for practical reasons.

          John also says:

          > For example, if all of the 'entities' that a data modeller wanted to use were already classified by a taxonomist and resided in a master data management inventory, then a sort of symbiotic relationship could exist between the necessarily narrow application of the data and the universal 'connectivity' of a fully faceted business vocabulary. <

          I see this as the role of the 'over-arching ontology which expresses the context of both data model and taxonomy', to quote my own post. The ontology, developed first, ensures that both data modeller and taxonomist are singing from the same hymn sheet. That will also prove of great benefit to data warehouse developers, document managers, records managers and information architects, further down the line.

          Keith says that he finds taxonomies are regarded as:

          > "THE solution" rather than being viewed as "A solution" or part of a larger system of models and decision-making depending on the nature of the enterprise <

          Taxonomies have been over-egged. Many in the field think 'taxonomy' first and context later. IMHO bad! Build the ontology first, then do your data modelling. Then you'll have done a PoC (Proof of Concept) for the domain - identifying the entities which are important, their important attributes (for the data modellers) and a first lead-in to the language people use to refer to them (for the taxonomists) . Using both the ontology and the data model, define the key attributes which different communities regard as important to them when they want to access and process information. That gives you a metadata application profile for each community which can be aggregated into a corporate metadata profile. Only then do you look at each attribute in each profile and decide how it is to be populated. Sometimes, it will be an /ad hoc/ value; sometimes the value will be drawn from a fixed, flat list; sometimes the value will be drawn from an organized, maintained hierarchy of values - a taxonomy. For me, the metadata profile comes first. A taxonomy only becomes relevant if a metadata element requires it.

          Gabriel said:

          > (I said  "ontology / taxonomy" in the above because I'm not clear myself whether our CM does satisfy a full definition of "ontology"; for example as yet we have no mechanisms for making inferences). <

          My 'working hypothesis' in this respect does not include the need for ontologies to enable the making of inferences. That is a requirement of strict 'ontologies' in the Semantic Web sense. For me, ontologies provide the context for ensuring that information and knowledge management structures and systems are coherent and interoperable.

          Keith said:

          > Getting at just where taxonomy, data modeling, and ontology specification begin, end, and overlap is really welcome.  <

          Again, my 'working hypothesis' is that ontologies come first, specifying the entities involved in an activity system, and their relationships. Data modellers will want to define the attributes of each entity and to characterize their relationships more rigorously, to enable their capture in the highly structured world of the DBMS, focused on logical consistency.

          Information managers, on the other hand, are less data-focused and more user-focused, concerned with linking entities and their key attributes to the concepts - and the terms which represent those concepts - employed by workers. So - where appropriate - they build a taxonomy proposing terms to be used for those concepts, reflecting the taxonomic relationships inherent in any domain - generic, partitive, instantial. While the taxonomy can establish the entities (concepts) involved, and their relationships, it cannot dictate the terms which people use to refer to those concepts. Provision is made therefore for variance in terminology by developing a thesaurus, which allows people to search using their native term, and for back-end software to translate this into the 'preferred term' established by the taxonomy.

          Hope that stimulates some thoughts. Meanwhile, where's Patrick Lambe in this thread? Patrick, I'm sure you have some informative views on these issues. Please join us.

          Regards,

          Bob




           

        • Bob Bater
          Cherie, As John commented, a brilliant new dimension to our discussion. – particularly your concept of the ‘systematic chaos of nature’. Wow! I think we
          Message 4 of 21 , Jan 6, 2010
          • 0 Attachment

            Cherie,

             

            As John commented, a brilliant new dimension to our discussion. – particularly your concept of the ‘systematic chaos of nature’. Wow! I think we need to consider that, but it does make an already complex issue even more complex!

             

            Regards,

             

            Bob

             

            From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cheriewagner@...
            Sent: 06 January 2010 20:05
            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

             

             

            In reading this I wanted to express my appreciation for the time and knowledge that all of you on this list share…I’m a behind-the-scenes lurker, so by way of brief introduction I worked in the content management and taxonomy space for many years and I am working now in different areas.  I know that I am quickly falling behind in what is a rapidly developing and ever-changing information modeling arena, so the following comment may seem obvious or archaic or just plain off!…but in reading this exchange it makes me think of fractals or fractal geometry and how it helps to predict the systematic chaos of nature.  Perhaps one could apply the concepts around fractal geometry to information or information modeling?  or maybe it would just result in some very cool geometric shapes... J

             

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

             

            Best,

            Cherie

             

             

            From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John O'Gorman
            Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:14 PM
            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

             

             

            I'd like to introduce one more abstract into the mix, followed by a concrete example as per Patrick's excellent suggestion. As Lisa mentioned, the mathematical subtleties of taxonomies and data models and such are of little interest outside groups like ours, but the truth is that this line of inquiry is predicated on a flat geometry. The digital universe - owing primarily to its binary origins - is comprised of only two dimensions. Manifestation of this singular truth is everywhere and in spite of some very clever attempts to mitigate the flatness of things, we still have folder structures, naming conventions, hierarchies and super- and sub-types. This is not to suggest that these inventions are not and have not been useful, but we need something more elegant to save ourselves from drowning in a sea of digits and bytes.

             

            Take search...enter 'cricket' and get back two point seven million hits on the sport, the insect, the ethical construct (as in "not cricket") and Buddy Holly. Because humans live in a multi-faceted universe and computers in a flat one, reconciling the semantics (i.e. the gap between n-dimensions and two) is up to us. What is needed is a new 'geometry' of information that simutaneously incorporates more precision and recognizes the existing symmetry of information.

             

            Concrete example: In programming the stupid computer must be 'told' what a string is and how it is going to be used. So a given string may be a variable, a global variable, an object or a method depending on the context. To avoid 'collision', the same string may not be used in any way other than the one for which it has been declared. In the context of the 'cricket' search a similar approach may be taken, albeit with a twist. For every unique concept behind the string 'cricket' a unique identifier is declared. Now we have something like: 1234 - cricket - sport; 3456 - cricket - status;  4567 - cricket - insect; 6789 - cricket - member of Buddy Holly's band.

             

            As Bob correctly points out, individual data models, taxonomies and ontologies (DM-T-O) are by necessity fairly narrow in scope. That's typically why taxonomies tend to break and data models fail with the introduction of information classes from a wider scope. Wouldn't it be interesting, though if in spite of these focused artifacts their individual members already had a declarative that uniquely identified not only what they represent but also what class they are in and how they can be connected to other patterns of use? In other words, have a new geometry built in to the vocabulary values to encourage reuse at a very granular level.

             

            I can expand on the 'patterns' concept in a separate post (like Lisa says, I risk being the only one interested) but for now, think of any formally constructed language and think of the universal patterns used to exchange information. There must be an agreement about the what and the how, and there must also be an understanding about the context and construction, and there is always semantics. A taxonomy (as would a data model) become a new pattern in a given language using existing elements.

             

             

             

             

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: lisa colvin [mailto:lisacolvin@...]
            Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 09:19 AM
            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

             

            Thanks for the lively discussion. It's exciting to see these ideas coming together.

            While there are some accepted standards for ontology modeling practice (RDFS/OWL), there are multiple knowledge representation languages which can be used to express any 'ontology'. Typically the more expressive the language, the more expensive it is computationally. So, you need to pick the representation language which best fits your needs. If you're not building a model to drive some sort of expert system or related capabilities,  a simpler knowledge representation scheme is probably better.

            However, one reason people use ontology languages in general is when there is a need for strong semantics which define the relationships/ context. Even if you don't want to build an expert/recommendation/QA/NL-based system, you can still use a more formal ontology language as just a pure specification language.

            So, is a faceted classification scheme an ontology? Some would say 'yes, if it uses an ontology language to express it'. Others might say it's not if you're not expressing/defining any inheritance relations. Overall, it probably doesn't matter what you call it as long as the semantics are rich enough to solve whatever problem you needed solving.

            There are fundamental differences to how the various disciplines approach information modeling. What I've found most helpful in working with people in another discipline is to be very explicit on how basic terms (like "term" :) , "class", "instance", "inference") are used in expressing the model that you're sharing. The idea of "inference", for example, can vary widely between an expert system developer and an OO developer. If these terms aren't described explicitly and used consistently, people get confused.

            I also found that defining the capabilities and mathematical relationship distinctions between "controlled vocabulary list", "synonym rings/synsets", taxonomy", "thesaurus", "ontology", "desciption logics",etc.  is really only interesting to taxonomists/ontologists and other curious people like us. :)

            :) Lisa

            On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

             

            Well I was just sitting back and enjoying the conversation, Bob. But since you ask, I 'll start with a comment that Matt made early on, that there might be usability issues with reusing structures from data models in taxonomies, even though in principle such reuse makes sense.

             

            I think there's a tendency for us to get very entity focused in these discussions and definitions and stop there. There's a good reason for this. The common ground for data models, ontologies, taxonomies is their need to establish relatively stable entities at the very least; they each do slightly different different things around the language referring to those entities, and they diverge in the type and extent of work around establishing and defining relationships and maybe inference-generating capabilities (which some taxonomy forms can support as well as ontologies). But the entities are the core point of reference.

             

            But Matt's comment reminds us that it's important to remember that data models, taxonomies and ontologies are at the end of the day just instruments, and to understand the instrument is not just about understanding the entities it manipulates, but how the instrument is used, and for what purpose. 

             

            The design of a tool is driven by its functionality, not its components. DM-T-Os serve related purposes via different means and in different contexts. There are important differences in the amount of human vs machine processing expected or served. As Matt suggests master data management is one way of getting a handle on how they can inter-operate. But fixing an entity and definition in one space (eg a data model) does not unquestionably qualify it for use in another space (eg a taxonomy).

             

            I think we also assume that usability is only really relevant at the taxonomy level. In my book I suggested that taxonomies are for humans and ontologies are for machines, which risks feeding that assumption. But at the end of the day, the rationale for using any of these instruments whether data models, taxonomies or ontologies, is that they must emerge into human use in some way. It's just that for DMs and Os machine processes provide different opportunities and constraints from human ones. If we can't see the pathway to human use (which is where some of the visionary talk on ontologies falls down, I feel) then they risk floating away into philosophical (or organisational) abstractions. I think this is where a lot of the hard wrestling work needs to be done, to resolve relationships between the instruments, preserve a common core where possible, and reflect the context-driven needs at organisational and user levels.

             

            This is all very abstract still... I think what would be useful would be some good clear cases where we can see the relationships in specific contexts.

             

            P

             

            Patrick Lambe

             

            weblog: www.greenchameleon.com

            website: www.straitsknowledge.com

            book: www.organisingknowledge.com

             

            Have you seen our KM Method Cards or

            Organisation Culture Cards?  

             

            http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/

             

             

             

             

            On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Bob Bater wrote:




             

            Heather, Gabriel, John, Keith & anyone else who's following this thread:

             

            I'm still feeling my way around these kinds of issues (have been for years), and have no hard-and-fast solutions. However, I do have some 'working hypotheses' which I find to be helpful. I'll refer to them as I respond to a few points made by John, Keith and Gabriel.

             

            Firstly, John is quite right in pointing out that both data models and taxonomies are necessarily bounded. Who'd want to undertake a data model or a taxonomy of *everything*? Well, I suppose Melville Dewey, UDC, LCC have all attempted it, with varying degrees of success. But that's a topic for another day. In an organizational context, both data models and taxonomies need to be restricted to a specific domain, if only for practical reasons.

             

            John also says:

            > For example, if all of the 'entities' that a data modeller wanted to use were already classified by a taxonomist and resided in a master data management inventory, then a sort of symbiotic relationship could exist between the necessarily narrow application of the data and the universal 'connectivity' of a fully faceted business vocabulary. <

            I see this as the role of the 'over-arching ontology which expresses the context of both data model and taxonomy', to quote my own post. The ontology, developed first, ensures that both data modeller and taxonomist are singing from the same hymn sheet. That will also prove of great benefit to data warehouse developers, document managers, records managers and information architects, further down the line.

             

            Keith says that he finds taxonomies are regarded as:

            > "THE solution" rather than being viewed as "A solution" or part of a larger system of models and decision-making depending on the nature of the enterprise <

            Taxonomies have been over-egged. Many in the field think 'taxonomy' first and context later. IMHO bad! Build the ontology first, then do your data modelling. Then you'll have done a PoC (Proof of Concept) for the domain - identifying the entities which are important, their important attributes (for the data modellers) and a first lead-in to the language people use to refer to them (for the taxonomists). Using both the ontology and the data model, define the key attributes which different communities regard as important to them when they want to access and process information. That gives you a metadata application profile for each community which can be aggregated into a corporate metadata profile. Only then do you look at each attribute in each profile and decide how it is to be populated. Sometimes, it will be an /ad hoc/ value; sometimes the value will be drawn from a fixed, flat list; sometimes the value will be drawn from an organized, maintained hierarchy of values - a taxonomy. For me, the metadata profile comes first. A taxonomy only becomes relevant if a metadata element requires it.

             

            Gabriel said:

            > (I said  "ontology / taxonomy" in the above because I'm not clear myself whether our CM does satisfy a full definition of "ontology"; for example as yet we have no mechanisms for making inferences). <

             

            My 'working hypothesis' in this respect does not include the need for ontologies to enable the making of inferences. That is a requirement of strict 'ontologies' in the Semantic Web sense. For me, ontologies provide the context for ensuring that information and knowledge management structures and systems are coherent and interoperable.

             

            Keith said:

            > Getting at just where taxonomy, data modeling, and ontology specification begin, end, and overlap is really welcome.  <

             

            Again, my 'working hypothesis' is that ontologies come first, specifying the entities involved in an activity system, and their relationships. Data modellers will want to define the attributes of each entity and to characterize their relationships more rigorously, to enable their capture in the highly structured world of the DBMS, focused on logical consistency.

             

            Information managers, on the other hand, are less data-focused and more user-focused, concerned with linking entities and their key attributes to the concepts - and the terms which represent those concepts - employed by workers. So - where appropriate - they build a taxonomy proposing terms to be used for those concepts, reflecting the taxonomic relationships inherent in any domain - generic, partitive, instantial. While the taxonomy can establish the entities (concepts) involved, and their relationships, it cannot dictate the terms which people use to refer to those concepts. Provision is made therefore for variance in terminology by developing a thesaurus, which allows people to search using their native term, and for back-end software to translate this into the 'preferred term' established by the taxonomy.

             

            Hope that stimulates some thoughts. Meanwhile, where's Patrick Lambe in this thread? Patrick, I'm sure you have some informative views on these issues. Please join us.

             

            Regards,

             

            Bob

             

             




             

             

          • Seth Earley
            I have not followed the entire thread – need to catch up. But did see these last comments about fractals. The following is a bit off topic and has
            Message 5 of 21 , Jan 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment

              I have not followed the entire thread – need to catch up.  But did see these last comments about fractals.  The following is a bit off topic and has absolutely no practical value for building taxonomies but I could not resist…   I really like fractals.  <smile>

               

              Here is a blog post I wrote last year about the nature of knowledge and taxonomies that ties into fractals.

               

              http://www.earley.com/blog/the-fractal-nature-of-knowledge

               

              Recorded knowledge is an extension of nature. (Intelligence is embedded in natural processes – nature is an excellent problem solver) It only makes sense that classifying that knowledge results in a similar structure. Data models are our way of enabling machines to derive connections in that chaotic sea of information. 

               

              In fact, there is a body of writing that discusses the role of tags and labels in allowing knowledge to emerge from chaos. 

               

              From the above blog post:

               

              In complexity, there is a sweet spot between chaos and control where value emerges. Too much chaos and nothing gets done. Too much control and there are no new solutions to problems. But what are necessary are mechanisms to encourage self-organization. Labels and classifications tell the organization what is important and allow people and teams to find and leverage knowledge that is created in one part of the organization and contribute to the overall goal or value creation. In the “Biology of Business” John Clippinger states that a manager’s job is to encourage knowledge flows. Knowledge flows are encouraged by use of tags that tell the organization what is important.

               

              Ontologies allow knowledge to emerge across domains of information. 

               

              Of course, biological systems have exploited the principle of self organization for eons. Life has evolved as order emerging from chaos and differentiates in the process of solving problems of competition and resource utilization.

               

              Economies are extensions of ecologies.  An economy solves problems of resource allocation, utilization, and competition for the best use of those resources.  So when we are trying to organize information for a business purpose, we’re really just operating on the fringe of some infinitesimally granular knowledge fractal.  It’s all part of the same process.  Makes sense that the principles are the same.

               

              I’ve been fascinated by this area for many years (must be the chemistry degree).  It gives me a sense of satisfaction that emergent intelligence is just the nature of things.  You can apply fractals to any and everything.  And labels are part of principles of self organization.  Thus the fundamental importance of the work that we do.

               

              (The following is completely off topic)

              When you consider value creation – value comes from knowledge flow – solutions applied to problems.  The financial crisis we just went through was a disruption of the value creation process.  People were taking value when none was created.  To quote Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, financial engineering does not do anything for the economy. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704825504574586330960597134.html

               

              I would argue that the people on this list create more real value for organizations than the people who engage in financial engineering and get paid ridiculous sums for “moving the rents” as Volcker states.  

               

              (To the people who are less familiar with this forum, this is not a typical post – apologies for the tangent)

               

              May your new year be full of organized information and value creation.

               

              Seth

               

              Seth Earley

              President
              _____________________________

              EARLEY & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
              Cell: 781-820-8080

              Email: seth@...  
              Web: www.earley.com

               

              Follow me on twitter: sethearley

               

              Free four part Jumpstart Series

              On Digital Asset Management starts

              Thursday, January 14th, 2010 1 pm eastern

              http://www.earley.com/webinars/jumpstarts/digital-asset-management

               

              From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Bater
              Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:36 PM
              To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

               

               

              Cherie,

               

              As John commented, a brilliant new dimension to our discussion. – particularly your concept of the ‘systematic chaos of nature’. Wow! I think we need to consider that, but it does make an already complex issue even more complex!

               

              Regards,

               

              Bob

               

              From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cheriewagner@...
              Sent: 06 January 2010 20:05
              To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

               

               

              In reading this I wanted to express my appreciation for the time and knowledge that all of you on this list share…I’m a behind-the-scenes lurker, so by way of brief introduction I worked in the content management and taxonomy space for many years and I am working now in different areas.  I know that I am quickly falling behind in what is a rapidly developing and ever-changing information modeling arena, so the following comment may seem obvious or archaic or just plain off!…but in reading this exchange it makes me think of fractals or fractal geometry and how it helps to predict the systematic chaos of nature.  Perhaps one could apply the concepts around fractal geometry to information or information modeling?  or maybe it would just result in some very cool geometric shapes... J

               

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

               

              Best,

              Cherie

               

               

              From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John O'Gorman
              Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:14 PM
              To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

               

               

              I'd like to introduce one more abstract into the mix, followed by a concrete example as per Patrick's excellent suggestion. As Lisa mentioned, the mathematical subtleties of taxonomies and data models and such are of little interest outside groups like ours, but the truth is that this line of inquiry is predicated on a flat geometry. The digital universe - owing primarily to its binary origins - is comprised of only two dimensions. Manifestation of this singular truth is everywhere and in spite of some very clever attempts to mitigate the flatness of things, we still have folder structures, naming conventions, hierarchies and super- and sub-types. This is not to suggest that these inventions are not and have not been useful, but we need something more elegant to save ourselves from drowning in a sea of digits and bytes.

               

              Take search...enter 'cricket' and get back two point seven million hits on the sport, the insect, the ethical construct (as in "not cricket") and Buddy Holly. Because humans live in a multi-faceted universe and computers in a flat one, reconciling the semantics (i.e. the gap between n-dimensions and two) is up to us. What is needed is a new 'geometry' of information that simutaneously incorporates more precision and recognizes the existing symmetry of information.

               

              Concrete example: In programming the stupid computer must be 'told' what a string is and how it is going to be used. So a given string may be a variable, a global variable, an object or a method depending on the context. To avoid 'collision', the same string may not be used in any way other than the one for which it has been declared. In the context of the 'cricket' search a similar approach may be taken, albeit with a twist. For every unique concept behind the string 'cricket' a unique identifier is declared. Now we have something like: 1234 - cricket - sport; 3456 - cricket - status;  4567 - cricket - insect; 6789 - cricket - member of Buddy Holly's band.

               

              As Bob correctly points out, individual data models, taxonomies and ontologies (DM-T-O) are by necessity fairly narrow in scope. That's typically why taxonomies tend to break and data models fail with the introduction of information classes from a wider scope. Wouldn't it be interesting, though if in spite of these focused artifacts their individual members already had a declarative that uniquely identified not only what they represent but also what class they are in and how they can be connected to other patterns of use? In other words, have a new geometry built in to the vocabulary values to encourage reuse at a very granular level.

               

              I can expand on the 'patterns' concept in a separate post (like Lisa says, I risk being the only one interested) but for now, think of any formally constructed language and think of the universal patterns used to exchange information. There must be an agreement about the what and the how, and there must also be an understanding about the context and construction, and there is always semantics. A taxonomy (as would a data model) become a new pattern in a given language using existing elements.

               

               

               

               

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: lisa colvin [mailto:lisacolvin@...]
              Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 09:19 AM
              To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

               

              Thanks for the lively discussion. It's exciting to see these ideas coming together.

              While there are some accepted standards for ontology modeling practice (RDFS/OWL), there are multiple knowledge representation languages which can be used to express any 'ontology'. Typically the more expressive the language, the more expensive it is computationally. So, you need to pick the representation language which best fits your needs. If you're not building a model to drive some sort of expert system or related capabilities,  a simpler knowledge representation scheme is probably better.

              However, one reason people use ontology languages in general is when there is a need for strong semantics which define the relationships/ context. Even if you don't want to build an expert/recommendation/QA/NL-based system, you can still use a more formal ontology language as just a pure specification language.

              So, is a faceted classification scheme an ontology? Some would say 'yes, if it uses an ontology language to express it'. Others might say it's not if you're not expressing/defining any inheritance relations. Overall, it probably doesn't matter what you call it as long as the semantics are rich enough to solve whatever problem you needed solving.

              There are fundamental differences to how the various disciplines approach information modeling. What I've found most helpful in working with people in another discipline is to be very explicit on how basic terms (like "term" :) , "class", "instance", "inference") are used in expressing the model that you're sharing. The idea of "inference", for example, can vary widely between an expert system developer and an OO developer. If these terms aren't described explicitly and used consistently, people get confused.

              I also found that defining the capabilities and mathematical relationship distinctions between "controlled vocabulary list", "synonym rings/synsets", taxonomy", "thesaurus", "ontology", "desciption logics",etc.  is really only interesting to taxonomists/ontologists and other curious people like us. :)

              :) Lisa

              On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

               

              Well I was just sitting back and enjoying the conversation, Bob. But since you ask, I 'll start with a comment that Matt made early on, that there might be usability issues with reusing structures from data models in taxonomies, even though in principle such reuse makes sense.

               

              I think there's a tendency for us to get very entity focused in these discussions and definitions and stop there. There's a good reason for this. The common ground for data models, ontologies, taxonomies is their need to establish relatively stable entities at the very least; they each do slightly different different things around the language referring to those entities, and they diverge in the type and extent of work around establishing and defining relationships and maybe inference-generating capabilities (which some taxonomy forms can support as well as ontologies). But the entities are the core point of reference.

               

              But Matt's comment reminds us that it's important to remember that data models, taxonomies and ontologies are at the end of the day just instruments, and to understand the instrument is not just about understanding the entities it manipulates, but how the instrument is used, and for what purpose. 

               

              The design of a tool is driven by its functionality, not its components. DM-T-Os serve related purposes via different means and in different contexts. There are important differences in the amount of human vs machine processing expected or served. As Matt suggests master data management is one way of getting a handle on how they can inter-operate. But fixing an entity and definition in one space (eg a data model) does not unquestionably qualify it for use in another space (eg a taxonomy).

               

              I think we also assume that usability is only really relevant at the taxonomy level. In my book I suggested that taxonomies are for humans and ontologies are for machines, which risks feeding that assumption. But at the end of the day, the rationale for using any of these instruments whether data models, taxonomies or ontologies, is that they must emerge into human use in some way. It's just that for DMs and Os machine processes provide different opportunities and constraints from human ones. If we can't see the pathway to human use (which is where some of the visionary talk on ontologies falls down, I feel) then they risk floating away into philosophical (or organisational) abstractions. I think this is where a lot of the hard wrestling work needs to be done, to resolve relationships between the instruments, preserve a common core where possible, and reflect the context-driven needs at organisational and user levels.

               

              This is all very abstract still... I think what would be useful would be some good clear cases where we can see the relationships in specific contexts.

               

              P

               

              Patrick Lambe

               

              weblog: www.greenchameleon.com

              website: www.straitsknowledge.com

              book: www.organisingknowledge.com

               

              Have you seen our KM Method Cards or

              Organisation Culture Cards?  

               

              http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/

               

               

               

               

              On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Bob Bater wrote:





               

              Heather, Gabriel, John, Keith & anyone else who's following this thread:

               

              I'm still feeling my way around these kinds of issues (have been for years), and have no hard-and-fast solutions. However, I do have some 'working hypotheses' which I find to be helpful. I'll refer to them as I respond to a few points made by John, Keith and Gabriel.

               

              Firstly, John is quite right in pointing out that both data models and taxonomies are necessarily bounded. Who'd want to undertake a data model or a taxonomy of *everything*? Well, I suppose Melville Dewey, UDC, LCC have all attempted it, with varying degrees of success. But that's a topic for another day. In an organizational context, both data models and taxonomies need to be restricted to a specific domain, if only for practical reasons.

               

              John also says:

              > For example, if all of the 'entities' that a data modeller wanted to use were already classified by a taxonomist and resided in a master data management inventory, then a sort of symbiotic relationship could exist between the necessarily narrow application of the data and the universal 'connectivity' of a fully faceted business vocabulary. <

              I see this as the role of the 'over-arching ontology which expresses the context of both data model and taxonomy', to quote my own post. The ontology, developed first, ensures that both data modeller and taxonomist are singing from the same hymn sheet. That will also prove of great benefit to data warehouse developers, document managers, records managers and information architects, further down the line.

               

              Keith says that he finds taxonomies are regarded as:

              > "THE solution" rather than being viewed as "A solution" or part of a larger system of models and decision-making depending on the nature of the enterprise <

              Taxonomies have been over-egged. Many in the field think 'taxonomy' first and context later. IMHO bad! Build the ontology first, then do your data modelling. Then you'll have done a PoC (Proof of Concept) for the domain - identifying the entities which are important, their important attributes (for the data modellers) and a first lead-in to the language people use to refer to them (for the taxonomists). Using both the ontology and the data model, define the key attributes which different communities regard as important to them when they want to access and process information. That gives you a metadata application profile for each community which can be aggregated into a corporate metadata profile. Only then do you look at each attribute in each profile and decide how it is to be populated. Sometimes, it will be an /ad hoc/ value; sometimes the value will be drawn from a fixed, flat list; sometimes the value will be drawn from an organized, maintained hierarchy of values - a taxonomy. For me, the metadata profile comes first. A taxonomy only becomes relevant if a metadata element requires it.

               

              Gabriel said:

              > (I said  "ontology / taxonomy" in the above because I'm not clear myself whether our CM does satisfy a full definition of "ontology"; for example as yet we have no mechanisms for making inferences). <

               

              My 'working hypothesis' in this respect does not include the need for ontologies to enable the making of inferences. That is a requirement of strict 'ontologies' in the Semantic Web sense. For me, ontologies provide the context for ensuring that information and knowledge management structures and systems are coherent and interoperable.

               

              Keith said:

              > Getting at just where taxonomy, data modeling, and ontology specification begin, end, and overlap is really welcome.  <

               

              Again, my 'working hypothesis' is that ontologies come first, specifying the entities involved in an activity system, and their relationships. Data modellers will want to define the attributes of each entity and to characterize their relationships more rigorously, to enable their capture in the highly structured world of the DBMS, focused on logical consistency.

               

              Information managers, on the other hand, are less data-focused and more user-focused, concerned with linking entities and their key attributes to the concepts - and the terms which represent those concepts - employed by workers. So - where appropriate - they build a taxonomy proposing terms to be used for those concepts, reflecting the taxonomic relationships inherent in any domain - generic, partitive, instantial. While the taxonomy can establish the entities (concepts) involved, and their relationships, it cannot dictate the terms which people use to refer to those concepts. Provision is made therefore for variance in terminology by developing a thesaurus, which allows people to search using their native term, and for back-end software to translate this into the 'preferred term' established by the taxonomy.

               

              Hope that stimulates some thoughts. Meanwhile, where's Patrick Lambe in this thread? Patrick, I'm sure you have some informative views on these issues. Please join us.

               

              Regards,

               

              Bob

               

               





               

               

            • laptopjockey
              Hi Seth - disagree a tad about the off topic designation...like the man said: Just because we re wandering around doesn t mean we re lost. My primary
              Message 6 of 21 , Jan 7, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Seth - disagree a tad about the 'off topic' designation...like the man said: "Just because we're wandering around doesn't mean we're lost."

                My primary justification for spending time with this group is to learn about the state of the discipline and maybe in the process contribute something to its future. Cherie's comment was brilliant because it represents a way of thinking about classification (by whichever method works) in a broader context, and by doing so perhaps develop a twenty-first century perspective on what I like to call 'predictive taxonomies'.

                Concrete being the order of the day, my job as an information integration architect relies on my ability to show clients - before I get a contract - that all their information (regardless how it is represented) is composed of the same elements. Almost always their initial reaction is skeptical - very similar I suppose to an alchemist when told about the periodic table. The truth is, that when you begin to think about it like fractals, all information MUST be composed of granular, self-described elements otherwise we would not be able to communicate their meaning to a larger audience.

                I think the group is in agreement that individual taxonomies, data models and even ontologies are of necessity purpose-built artifacts designed to do a job, but in order to extend their usefulness they must exist in a context - be it fractal or otherwise - that is consistent and extensible to other DM - T - Os.

                My T.O.E. is not an attempt to classify everything, but like Cherie's fractal comment it is a reasonably sound proposition that the elements of information are the same everywhere - like the laws of Physics - and the apparent chaos we see around us is just nature's way of reminding us that 108 usable chemical elements can produce an infinite variety of combinations (to mix metaphors pretty badly).


                --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, Seth Earley <seth@...> wrote:
                >
                > I have not followed the entire thread â€" need to catch up. But did see these last comments about fractals. The following is a bit off topic and has absolutely no practical value for building taxonomies but I could not resist… I really like fractals. <smile>
                >
                > Here is a blog post I wrote last year about the nature of knowledge and taxonomies that ties into fractals.
                >
                > http://www.earley.com/blog/the-fractal-nature-of-knowledge
                >
                > Recorded knowledge is an extension of nature. (Intelligence is embedded in natural processes â€" nature is an excellent problem solver) It only makes sense that classifying that knowledge results in a similar structure. Data models are our way of enabling machines to derive connections in that chaotic sea of information.
                >
                > In fact, there is a body of writing that discusses the role of tags and labels in allowing knowledge to emerge from chaos.
                >
                > From the above blog post:
                >
                > In complexity, there is a sweet spot between chaos and control where value emerges. Too much chaos and nothing gets done. Too much control and there are no new solutions to problems. But what are necessary are mechanisms to encourage self-organization. Labels and classifications tell the organization what is important and allow people and teams to find and leverage knowledge that is created in one part of the organization and contribute to the overall goal or value creation. In the “Biology of Business” John Clippinger states that a manager’s job is to encourage knowledge flows. Knowledge flows are encouraged by use of tags that tell the organization what is important.
                >
                > Ontologies allow knowledge to emerge across domains of information.
                >
                > Of course, biological systems have exploited the principle of self organization for eons. Life has evolved as order emerging from chaos and differentiates in the process of solving problems of competition and resource utilization.
                >
                > Economies are extensions of ecologies. An economy solves problems of resource allocation, utilization, and competition for the best use of those resources. So when we are trying to organize information for a business purpose, we’re really just operating on the fringe of some infinitesimally granular knowledge fractal. It’s all part of the same process. Makes sense that the principles are the same.
                >
                > I’ve been fascinated by this area for many years (must be the chemistry degree). It gives me a sense of satisfaction that emergent intelligence is just the nature of things. You can apply fractals to any and everything. And labels are part of principles of self organization. Thus the fundamental importance of the work that we do.
                >
                > (The following is completely off topic)
                > When you consider value creation â€" value comes from knowledge flow â€" solutions applied to problems. The financial crisis we just went through was a disruption of the value creation process. People were taking value when none was created. To quote Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, financial engineering does not do anything for the economy. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704825504574586330960597134.html
                >
                > I would argue that the people on this list create more real value for organizations than the people who engage in financial engineering and get paid ridiculous sums for “moving the rents” as Volcker states.
                >
                > (To the people who are less familiar with this forum, this is not a typical post â€" apologies for the tangent)
                >
                > May your new year be full of organized information and value creation.
                >
                > Seth
                >
                > Seth Earley
                > President
                > _____________________________
                > EARLEY & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
                > Cell: 781-820-8080
                > Email: seth@...<mailto:seth@...>
                > Web: www.earley.com<http://www.earley.com>
                >
                > Follow me on twitter: sethearley
                >
                > Free four part Jumpstart Series
                > On Digital Asset Management starts
                > Thursday, January 14th, 2010 1 pm eastern
                > http://www.earley.com/webinars/jumpstarts/digital-asset-management
                >
                > From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Bater
                > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:36 PM
                > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy
                >
                >
                > Cherie,
                >
                > As John commented, a brilliant new dimension to our discussion. â€" particularly your concept of the ‘systematic chaos of nature’. Wow! I think we need to consider that, but it does make an already complex issue even more complex!
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > Bob
                >
                > From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cheriewagner@...
                > Sent: 06 January 2010 20:05
                > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy
                >
                >
                > In reading this I wanted to express my appreciation for the time and knowledge that all of you on this list share…I’m a behind-the-scenes lurker, so by way of brief introduction I worked in the content management and taxonomy space for many years and I am working now in different areas. I know that I am quickly falling behind in what is a rapidly developing and ever-changing information modeling arena, so the following comment may seem obvious or archaic or just plain off!…but in reading this exchange it makes me think of fractals or fractal geometry and how it helps to predict the systematic chaos of nature. Perhaps one could apply the concepts around fractal geometry to information or information modeling? or maybe it would just result in some very cool geometric shapes... ☺
                >
                > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
                >
                > Best,
                > Cherie
                >
                >
                > From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John O'Gorman
                > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:14 PM
                > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy
                >
                >
                > I'd like to introduce one more abstract into the mix, followed by a concrete example as per Patrick's excellent suggestion. As Lisa mentioned, the mathematical subtleties of taxonomies and data models and such are of little interest outside groups like ours, but the truth is that this line of inquiry is predicated on a flat geometry. The digital universe - owing primarily to its binary origins - is comprised of only two dimensions. Manifestation of this singular truth is everywhere and in spite of some very clever attempts to mitigate the flatness of things, we still have folder structures, naming conventions, hierarchies and super- and sub-types. This is not to suggest that these inventions are not and have not been useful, but we need something more elegant to save ourselves from drowning in a sea of digits and bytes.
                >
                > Take search...enter 'cricket' and get back two point seven million hits on the sport, the insect, the ethical construct (as in "not cricket") and Buddy Holly. Because humans live in a multi-faceted universe and computers in a flat one, reconciling the semantics (i.e. the gap between n-dimensions and two) is up to us. What is needed is a new 'geometry' of information that simutaneously incorporates more precision and recognizes the existing symmetry of information.
                >
                > Concrete example: In programming the stupid computer must be 'told' what a string is and how it is going to be used. So a given string may be a variable, a global variable, an object or a method depending on the context. To avoid 'collision', the same string may not be used in any way other than the one for which it has been declared. In the context of the 'cricket' search a similar approach may be taken, albeit with a twist. For every unique concept behind the string 'cricket' a unique identifier is declared. Now we have something like: 1234 - cricket - sport; 3456 - cricket - status; 4567 - cricket - insect; 6789 - cricket - member of Buddy Holly's band.
                >
                > As Bob correctly points out, individual data models, taxonomies and ontologies (DM-T-O) are by necessity fairly narrow in scope. That's typically why taxonomies tend to break and data models fail with the introduction of information classes from a wider scope. Wouldn't it be interesting, though if in spite of these focused artifacts their individual members already had a declarative that uniquely identified not only what they represent but also what class they are in and how they can be connected to other patterns of use? In other words, have a new geometry built in to the vocabulary values to encourage reuse at a very granular level.
                >
                > I can expand on the 'patterns' concept in a separate post (like Lisa says, I risk being the only one interested) but for now, think of any formally constructed language and think of the universal patterns used to exchange information. There must be an agreement about the what and the how, and there must also be an understanding about the context and construction, and there is always semantics. A taxonomy (as would a data model) become a new pattern in a given language using existing elements.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: lisa colvin [mailto:lisacolvin@...]
                > Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 09:19 AM
                > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy
                >
                >
                > Thanks for the lively discussion. It's exciting to see these ideas coming together.
                >
                > While there are some accepted standards for ontology modeling practice (RDFS/OWL), there are multiple knowledge representation languages which can be used to express any 'ontology'. Typically the more expressive the language, the more expensive it is computationally. So, you need to pick the representation language which best fits your needs. If you're not building a model to drive some sort of expert system or related capabilities, a simpler knowledge representation scheme is probably better.
                >
                > However, one reason people use ontology languages in general is when there is a need for strong semantics which define the relationships/ context. Even if you don't want to build an expert/recommendation/QA/NL-based system, you can still use a more formal ontology language as just a pure specification language.
                >
                > So, is a faceted classification scheme an ontology? Some would say 'yes, if it uses an ontology language to express it'. Others might say it's not if you're not expressing/defining any inheritance relations. Overall, it probably doesn't matter what you call it as long as the semantics are rich enough to solve whatever problem you needed solving.
                >
                > There are fundamental differences to how the various disciplines approach information modeling. What I've found most helpful in working with people in another discipline is to be very explicit on how basic terms (like "term" :) , "class", "instance", "inference") are used in expressing the model that you're sharing. The idea of "inference", for example, can vary widely between an expert system developer and an OO developer. If these terms aren't described explicitly and used consistently, people get confused.
                >
                > I also found that defining the capabilities and mathematical relationship distinctions between "controlled vocabulary list", "synonym rings/synsets", taxonomy", "thesaurus", "ontology", "desciption logics",etc. is really only interesting to taxonomists/ontologists and other curious people like us. :)
                >
                > :) Lisa
                > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...<mailto:plambe@...>> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Well I was just sitting back and enjoying the conversation, Bob. But since you ask, I 'll start with a comment that Matt made early on, that there might be usability issues with reusing structures from data models in taxonomies, even though in principle such reuse makes sense.
                >
                > I think there's a tendency for us to get very entity focused in these discussions and definitions and stop there. There's a good reason for this. The common ground for data models, ontologies, taxonomies is their need to establish relatively stable entities at the very least; they each do slightly different different things around the language referring to those entities, and they diverge in the type and extent of work around establishing and defining relationships and maybe inference-generating capabilities (which some taxonomy forms can support as well as ontologies). But the entities are the core point of reference.
                >
                > But Matt's comment reminds us that it's important to remember that data models, taxonomies and ontologies are at the end of the day just instruments, and to understand the instrument is not just about understanding the entities it manipulates, but how the instrument is used, and for what purpose.
                >
                > The design of a tool is driven by its functionality, not its components. DM-T-Os serve related purposes via different means and in different contexts. There are important differences in the amount of human vs machine processing expected or served. As Matt suggests master data management is one way of getting a handle on how they can inter-operate. But fixing an entity and definition in one space (eg a data model) does not unquestionably qualify it for use in another space (eg a taxonomy).
                >
                > I think we also assume that usability is only really relevant at the taxonomy level. In my book I suggested that taxonomies are for humans and ontologies are for machines, which risks feeding that assumption. But at the end of the day, the rationale for using any of these instruments whether data models, taxonomies or ontologies, is that they must emerge into human use in some way. It's just that for DMs and Os machine processes provide different opportunities and constraints from human ones. If we can't see the pathway to human use (which is where some of the visionary talk on ontologies falls down, I feel) then they risk floating away into philosophical (or organisational) abstractions. I think this is where a lot of the hard wrestling work needs to be done, to resolve relationships between the instruments, preserve a common core where possible, and reflect the context-driven needs at organisational and user levels.
                >
                > This is all very abstract still... I think what would be useful would be some good clear cases where we can see the relationships in specific contexts.
                >
                > P
                >
                > Patrick Lambe
                >
                > weblog: www.greenchameleon.com<http://www.greenchameleon.com/>
                > website: www.straitsknowledge.com<http://www.straitsknowledge.com/>
                > book: www.organisingknowledge.com<http://www.organisingknowledge.com/>
                >
                > Have you seen our KM Method Cards or
                > Organisation Culture Cards?
                >
                > http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Bob Bater wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Heather, Gabriel, John, Keith & anyone else who's following this thread:
                >
                > I'm still feeling my way around these kinds of issues (have been for years), and have no hard-and-fast solutions. However, I do have some 'working hypotheses' which I find to be helpful. I'll refer to them as I respond to a few points made by John, Keith and Gabriel.
                >
                > Firstly, John is quite right in pointing out that both data models and taxonomies are necessarily bounded. Who'd want to undertake a data model or a taxonomy of *everything*? Well, I suppose Melville Dewey, UDC, LCC have all attempted it, with varying degrees of success. But that's a topic for another day. In an organizational context, both data models and taxonomies need to be restricted to a specific domain, if only for practical reasons.
                >
                > John also says:
                > > For example, if all of the 'entities' that a data modeller wanted to use were already classified by a taxonomist and resided in a master data management inventory, then a sort of symbiotic relationship could exist between the necessarily narrow application of the data and the universal 'connectivity' of a fully faceted business vocabulary. <
                > I see this as the role of the 'over-arching ontology which expresses the context of both data model and taxonomy', to quote my own post. The ontology, developed first, ensures that both data modeller and taxonomist are singing from the same hymn sheet. That will also prove of great benefit to data warehouse developers, document managers, records managers and information architects, further down the line.
                >
                > Keith says that he finds taxonomies are regarded as:
                > > "THE solution" rather than being viewed as "A solution" or part of a larger system of models and decision-making depending on the nature of the enterprise <
                > Taxonomies have been over-egged. Many in the field think 'taxonomy' first and context later. IMHO bad! Build the ontology first, then do your data modelling. Then you'll have done a PoC (Proof of Concept) for the domain - identifying the entities which are important, their important attributes (for the data modellers) and a first lead-in to the language people use to refer to them (for the taxonomists). Using both the ontology and the data model, define the key attributes which different communities regard as important to them when they want to access and process information. That gives you a metadata application profile for each community which can be aggregated into a corporate metadata profile. Only then do you look at each attribute in each profile and decide how it is to be populated. Sometimes, it will be an /ad hoc/ value; sometimes the value will be drawn from a fixed, flat list; sometimes the value will be drawn from an organized, maintained hierarchy of values - a taxonomy. For me, the metadata profile comes first. A taxonomy only becomes relevant if a metadata element requires it.
                >
                > Gabriel said:
                > > (I said "ontology / taxonomy" in the above because I'm not clear myself whether our CM does satisfy a full definition of "ontology"; for example as yet we have no mechanisms for making inferences). <
                >
                > My 'working hypothesis' in this respect does not include the need for ontologies to enable the making of inferences. That is a requirement of strict 'ontologies' in the Semantic Web sense. For me, ontologies provide the context for ensuring that information and knowledge management structures and systems are coherent and interoperable.
                >
                > Keith said:
                > > Getting at just where taxonomy, data modeling, and ontology specification begin, end, and overlap is really welcome. <
                >
                > Again, my 'working hypothesis' is that ontologies come first, specifying the entities involved in an activity system, and their relationships. Data modellers will want to define the attributes of each entity and to characterize their relationships more rigorously, to enable their capture in the highly structured world of the DBMS, focused on logical consistency.
                >
                > Information managers, on the other hand, are less data-focused and more user-focused, concerned with linking entities and their key attributes to the concepts - and the terms which represent those concepts - employed by workers. So - where appropriate - they build a taxonomy proposing terms to be used for those concepts, reflecting the taxonomic relationships inherent in any domain - generic, partitive, instantial. While the taxonomy can establish the entities (concepts) involved, and their relationships, it cannot dictate the terms which people use to refer to those concepts. Provision is made therefore for variance in terminology by developing a thesaurus, which allows people to search using their native term, and for back-end software to translate this into the 'preferred term' established by the taxonomy.
                >
                > Hope that stimulates some thoughts. Meanwhile, where's Patrick Lambe in this thread? Patrick, I'm sure you have some informative views on these issues. Please join us.
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > Bob
                >
              • Bob Bater
                Matt et al., Sorry for the long delay in responding, I’ve been tied-up with other things. I’m not intending to restart this thread, but simply to be polite
                Message 7 of 21 , Jan 16, 2010
                • 0 Attachment

                  Matt et al.,

                   

                  Sorry for the long delay in responding, I’ve been tied-up with other things. I’m not intending to restart this thread, but simply to be polite in responding to Matt’s question below.

                   

                  I guess my use of the word ‘ontology’ is what Wikipedia describes under the article Ontology (Information Science):

                   

                  Ø  In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts. <

                   

                  In my case, the ‘domain’ is an activity system – usually an organization or part of an organization. At that point, I disagree with the Wikipedia entry where it says:

                   

                  Ø  An ontology provides a shared vocabulary, which can be used to model a domain. <

                   

                  I don’t believe ontologies generate vocabularies directly. They provide a shared depiction of concepts and their relationships in an activity system, and it’s only in the next stage (the taxonomic system) that terms are agreed for describing those concepts. A third stage – the retrieval system – is where one recognizes that different communities use different terms for the same thing, and if people are to retrieve information using their own terms, then these must be reconciled through the conventional techniques of preferred and non-preferred terms and related terms exemplified by the thesaurus.

                   

                  In this sense, my ‘ontology’ is analogous to what Wikipedia describes as ‘Upper ontology (information science)’. I don’t use the ontology itself to make inferences, but to draw the broad outlines of my taxonomic system, which is where I start making inferences to construct the hierarchical and referential relationships.

                   

                  I don’t know if it will make my approach to and use of ontologies any clearer, but anyone interested can look at a presentation I gave to the NKOS workshop in Vienna in 2005: http://www2.db.dk/nkos2005/Bob Bater.pdf.  

                   

                  Best regards,

                   

                  Bob

                   

                  From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt Moore
                  Sent: 06 January 2010 01:01
                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

                   

                   

                  Bob,

                  "My 'working hypothesis' in this respect does not include the need for ontologies to enable the making of inferences."

                  I think you're using a particular version of the term "ontology" that might cause a little confusion. How does your ontology differ from a faceted classification structure? My understanding of ontologies is that they specify the "verbs" that link "nouns" as well as the nouns themselves (so they specify what a certain subclass of person can do to a certain subclass of document for example). What's "in" and what's "out" of your model?

                  Cheers,

                  Matt

                   


                  From: Bob Bater <bbater@...>
                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 10:30:02 AM
                  Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] data modeling and taxonomy

                   

                  Heather, Gabriel, John, Keith & anyone else who's following this thread:

                   

                  I'm still feeling my way around these kinds of issues (have been for years), and have no hard-and-fast solutions. However, I do have some 'working hypotheses' which I find to be helpful. I'll refer to them as I respond to a few points made by John, Keith and Gabriel.

                   

                  Firstly, John is quite right in pointing out that both data models and taxonomies are necessarily bounded. Who'd want to undertake a data model or a taxonomy of *everything* ? Well, I suppose Melville Dewey, UDC, LCC have all attempted it, with varying degrees of success. But that's a topic for another day. In an organizational context, both data models and taxonomies need to be restricted to a specific domain, if only for practical reasons.

                   

                  John also says:

                  > For example, if all of the 'entities' that a data modeller wanted to use were already classified by a taxonomist and resided in a master data management inventory, then a sort of symbiotic relationship could exist between the necessarily narrow application of the data and the universal 'connectivity' of a fully faceted business vocabulary. <

                  I see this as the role of the 'over-arching ontology which expresses the context of both data model and taxonomy', to quote my own post. The ontology, developed first, ensures that both data modeller and taxonomist are singing from the same hymn sheet. That will also prove of great benefit to data warehouse developers, document managers, records managers and information architects, further down the line.

                   

                  Keith says that he finds taxonomies are regarded as:

                  > "THE solution" rather than being viewed as "A solution" or part of a larger system of models and decision-making depending on the nature of the enterprise <

                  Taxonomies have been over-egged. Many in the field think 'taxonomy' first and context later. IMHO bad! Build the ontology first, then do your data modelling. Then you'll have done a PoC (Proof of Concept) for the domain - identifying the entities which are important, their important attributes (for the data modellers) and a first lead-in to the language people use to refer to them (for the taxonomists) . Using both the ontology and the data model, define the key attributes which different communities regard as important to them when they want to access and process information. That gives you a metadata application profile for each community which can be aggregated into a corporate metadata profile. Only then do you look at each attribute in each profile and decide how it is to be populated. Sometimes, it will be an /ad hoc/ value; sometimes the value will be drawn from a fixed, flat list; sometimes the value will be drawn from an organized, maintained hierarchy of values - a taxonomy. For me, the metadata profile comes first. A taxonomy only becomes relevant if a metadata element requires it.

                   

                  Gabriel said:

                  > (I said  "ontology / taxonomy" in the above because I'm not clear myself whether our CM does satisfy a full definition of "ontology"; for example as yet we have no mechanisms for making inferences). <

                   

                  My 'working hypothesis' in this respect does not include the need for ontologies to enable the making of inferences. That is a requirement of strict 'ontologies' in the Semantic Web sense. For me, ontologies provide the context for ensuring that information and knowledge management structures and systems are coherent and interoperable.

                   

                  Keith said:

                  > Getting at just where taxonomy, data modeling, and ontology specification begin, end, and overlap is really welcome.  <

                   

                  Again, my 'working hypothesis' is that ontologies come first, specifying the entities involved in an activity system, and their relationships. Data modellers will want to define the attributes of each entity and to characterize their relationships more rigorously, to enable their capture in the highly structured world of the DBMS, focused on logical consistency.

                   

                  Information managers, on the other hand, are less data-focused and more user-focused, concerned with linking entities and their key attributes to the concepts - and the terms which represent those concepts - employed by workers. So - where appropriate - they build a taxonomy proposing terms to be used for those concepts, reflecting the taxonomic relationships inherent in any domain - generic, partitive, instantial. While the taxonomy can establish the entities (concepts) involved, and their relationships, it cannot dictate the terms which people use to refer to those concepts. Provision is made therefore for variance in terminology by developing a thesaurus, which allows people to search using their native term, and for back-end software to translate this into the 'preferred term' established by the taxonomy.

                   

                  Hope that stimulates some thoughts. Meanwhile, where's Patrick Lambe in this thread? Patrick, I'm sure you have some informative views on these issues. Please join us.

                   

                  Regards,

                   

                  Bob

                   

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