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

Open No-Host Taxonomy Dinner in San Diego, June 8

Expand Messages
  • George Peckham-Rooney
    If you live in the San Diego area or will be in town for the SLA Annual Conference this year, the SLA Taxonomy Division would like to invite you to
    Message 1 of 11 , May 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      If you live in the San Diego area or will be in town for the SLA Annual Conference this year, the SLA Taxonomy Division would like to invite you to a no-host dinner on Saturday June 8th. No-hosts provide a great opportunity to network, socialize, and talk shop. Whether you're a veteran taxonomist or someone hoping to learn a little more about the field, we encourage you to join us!
      • When: Saturday, June 8th at 6:30pm
      • Where: Chopahn Restaurant* (http://www.chopahnrestaurant.com/), 750 6th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101
      • Who: Anyone interested in taxonomy, metadata, and related areas of practice. Non-SLA members are welcome, so feel free to spread the word.
      Please RSVP to Ben Licciardi (benlicciardi@...) so we can get an accurate headcount. We look forward to seeing you there!

      *Chopahn specializes in Afghan cuisine, and was suggested by the local SLA chapter as quiet enough for conversation and willing to give individual checks. If you've never tried food from this area of the world, there’s something for everyone: kabobs, salads, curries, and lots of vegetarian options.

      About Taxonomy Division:
      The Taxonomy Division addresses ways to organize and structure information so that content is accessible and useful. It offers a practical context for exploring issues and sharing experiences related to planning, creating and maintaining taxonomies, thesauri, authority files, and other controlled vocabularies and information structures. If you are interested in learning more about the division or joining us, please check out our website, where we have information about upcoming events. 
    • Keipat Patkei
      Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about incorporating
      Message 2 of 11 , May 30, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them.  How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"  

        I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.)  Any thoughts on this?  I don't mind being told I'm way off base here.  Please advise and thanks to all.

        Keith DeWeese

      • Jim Smallwood
        I hope I m not off-base here, but I believe what Keipat is asking is typically handled by the use of SEE, SEE ALSO and PREFERRED or NOB-PREFERRED references to
        Message 3 of 11 , May 30, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I hope I'm not off-base here, but I believe what Keipat is asking is typically handled by the use of SEE, SEE ALSO and PREFERRED or NOB-PREFERRED references to address uncertainties. 

          In addition, and to break out of arguments revolving around personal term preferences, reference known authorities such as Library of Congress and others. 

          Trying to build on idiosyncrasies is a slippery slope. Adhering to the authority of standards can avoid those issues. 

          Jim Smallwood
          Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories 

          On May 30, 2013, at 10:01, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:

           

          Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them.  How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"  

          I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.)  Any thoughts on this?  I don't mind being told I'm way off base here.  Please advise and thanks to all.

          Keith DeWeese

        • marijane white
          Keith, I am wholly unfamiliar with probabilistic ontologies and PR-OWL, but the situation you describe seems like an ideal application for a Topic Map. One of
          Message 4 of 11 , May 30, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Keith,

            I am wholly unfamiliar with probabilistic ontologies and PR-OWL, but the situation you describe seems like an ideal application for a Topic Map.  One of the more important features of Topic Maps is the concept of scope, which allows you to state what context a particular statement/assertion in the model is valid in, such as the context of a particular domain expert's worldview.  Trond Petterson has a fairly concise definition of scope in his article, "Explaining Topic Maps":

            "Scope enables us to state under which perspective a given piece of information is valid. It may be, for instance, that a specific person, group, or organization has asserted that something is true. By using scope, one can explicitly capture that this information is valid when seen by, or from the scope of, this entity. (There is also a default scope under which the information is always considered valid — for example the “default” name of a person). Scope may be used to express what information is valid to which user group(s), the language of a piece of information, etc. Not all humans agree on everything (e.g. how to represent some aspect of the world), and therefore scope is an important feature of Topic Maps."

            Steve Pepper's "Toward a General Theory of Scope" is a longer treatment of the subject:
            http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/scope.htm


            -marijane
          • Keipat Patkei
            Jim, Thanks for the response. Works for me!  Best, Keith ________________________________ From: Jim Smallwood To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
            Message 5 of 11 , May 30, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Jim,

              Thanks for the response. Works for me!  Best,

              Keith


              From: Jim Smallwood <jimbit@...>
              To: "TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com" <TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 3:27 PM
              Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Incorporating uncertainties into ontologies...

               
              I hope I'm not off-base here, but I believe what Keipat is asking is typically handled by the use of SEE, SEE ALSO and PREFERRED or NOB-PREFERRED references to address uncertainties. 

              In addition, and to break out of arguments revolving around personal term preferences, reference known authorities such as Library of Congress and others. 

              Trying to build on idiosyncrasies is a slippery slope. Adhering to the authority of standards can avoid those issues. 

              Jim Smallwood
              Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories 

              On May 30, 2013, at 10:01, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:

               
              Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them.  How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"  

              I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.)  Any thoughts on this?  I don't mind being told I'm way off base here.  Please advise and thanks to all.

              Keith DeWeese



            • Keipat Patkei
              Marijane, Thanks a lot for bringing topic maps and scope to my attention.  Great input and much appreciated. Keith ________________________________ From:
              Message 6 of 11 , May 30, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Marijane,

                Thanks a lot for bringing topic maps and scope to my attention.  Great input and much appreciated.

                Keith


                From: marijane white <marijane@...>
                To: "TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com" <TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 3:38 PM
                Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Incorporating uncertainties into ontologies...

                 
                Keith,

                I am wholly unfamiliar with probabilistic ontologies and PR-OWL, but the situation you describe seems like an ideal application for a Topic Map.  One of the more important features of Topic Maps is the concept of scope, which allows you to state what context a particular statement/assertion in the model is valid in, such as the context of a particular domain expert's worldview.  Trond Petterson has a fairly concise definition of scope in his article, "Explaining Topic Maps":

                "Scope enables us to state under which perspective a given piece of information is valid. It may be, for instance, that a specific person, group, or organization has asserted that something is true. By using scope, one can explicitly capture that this information is valid when seen by, or from the scope of, this entity. (There is also a default scope under which the information is always considered valid — for example the “default” name of a person). Scope may be used to express what information is valid to which user group(s), the language of a piece of information, etc. Not all humans agree on everything (e.g. how to represent some aspect of the world), and therefore scope is an important feature of Topic Maps."

                Steve Pepper's "Toward a General Theory of Scope" is a longer treatment of the subject:
                http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/scope.htm


                -marijane


              • Alice
                Keith, Sorry if this is blatantly obvious. It seems ontology efforts ignore existing solutions in the spectrum of knowledge organization systems. Scope Notes
                Message 7 of 11 , May 31, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Keith,

                  Sorry if this is blatantly obvious. It seems ontology efforts ignore existing solutions in the spectrum of knowledge organization systems. Scope Notes have long been a basic element of thesaurus construction and one of the things that, according to Z39.19, take thesauri beyond the simpler taxonomies. Scope Notes clarify how a term is to be interpreted for your project, if it could have another meaning in another context. Another differentiator, Related Terms also reflect intended meaning. And business rules for interpreting and applying the term to content for classification add another layer of control.

                  As for the term selection, ultimately the person managing the vocabulary must make settle the squabble and make the decision. Good luck on that!

                  Alice

                  --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them.  How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"  
                  >
                  > I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.)  Any thoughts on this?  I don't mind being told I'm way off base here.  Please advise and thanks to all.
                  >
                  > Keith DeWeese
                  >
                • Bob DuCharme
                  One more standard to think about (and note that PR-OWL is not a standard--I m pretty familiar with the OWL landscape and this is the first time I ve heard of
                  Message 8 of 11 , May 31, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    One more standard to think about (and note that PR-OWL is not a standard--I'm pretty familiar with the OWL landscape and this is the first time I've heard of it): The W3C's SKOS, in addition to allowing for storing things like scope notes and information about related terms, includes properties for storing exact match relationships but also broad match and close match relationships. I've never heard of any attempts to quantify how close a non-exact match is and to then use those quantities in application logic (the way that fuzzy logic is used in other application domains) but this does give you some added flexibility in adding data that can be used to enhance searches without asserting precise relationships.

                    Bob DuCharme



                    On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:
                     

                    Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them.  How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"  

                    I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.)  Any thoughts on this?  I don't mind being told I'm way off base here.  Please advise and thanks to all.

                    Keith DeWeese


                  • Keipat Patkei
                    Hi Alice, Thanks a lot for your response.  I understand what you mean regarding existing solutions.  There isn t a vocabulary to manage yet, but when there
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 3, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Alice,

                      Thanks a lot for your response.  I understand what you mean regarding existing solutions.  There isn't a vocabulary to manage yet, but when there is, I'll be ready!  Thanks, again.

                      Keith


                      From: Alice <aredmondneal@...>
                      To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 10:52 AM
                      Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re: Incorporating uncertainties into ontologies...

                       


                      Keith,

                      Sorry if this is blatantly obvious. It seems ontology efforts ignore existing solutions in the spectrum of knowledge organization systems. Scope Notes have long been a basic element of thesaurus construction and one of the things that, according to Z39.19, take thesauri beyond the simpler taxonomies. Scope Notes clarify how a term is to be interpreted for your project, if it could have another meaning in another context. Another differentiator, Related Terms also reflect intended meaning. And business rules for interpreting and applying the term to content for classification add another layer of control.

                      As for the term selection, ultimately the person managing the vocabulary must make settle the squabble and make the decision. Good luck on that!

                      Alice

                      --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them.  How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"  
                      >
                      > I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.)  Any thoughts on this?  I don't mind being told I'm way off base here.  Please advise and thanks to all.
                      >
                      > Keith DeWeese
                      >



                    • Keipat Patkei
                      Thanks, Bob.  Much appreciated. Keith ________________________________ From: Bob DuCharme To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 4, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks, Bob.  Much appreciated.

                        Keith


                        From: Bob DuCharme <bducharme@...>
                        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 5:24 PM
                        Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Incorporating uncertainties into ontologies...

                         
                        One more standard to think about (and note that PR-OWL is not a standard--I'm pretty familiar with the OWL landscape and this is the first time I've heard of it): The W3C's SKOS, in addition to allowing for storing things like scope notes and information about related terms, includes properties for storing exact match relationships but also broad match and close match relationships. I've never heard of any attempts to quantify how close a non-exact match is and to then use those quantities in application logic (the way that fuzzy logic is used in other application domains) but this does give you some added flexibility in adding data that can be used to enhance searches without asserting precise relationships.

                        Bob DuCharme



                        On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:
                         
                        Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them.  How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"  

                        I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.)  Any thoughts on this?  I don't mind being told I'm way off base here.  Please advise and thanks to all.

                        Keith DeWeese




                      • Ahren
                        Keith, Very good question and equally good responses on this thread. Ontologies are potentially very complicated. It s easy to find yourself treading down a
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jun 14, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Keith,

                          Very good question and equally good responses on this thread.

                          Ontologies are potentially very complicated. It's easy to find yourself treading down a path of attempting to categorize all things to all people completely.

                          Taking a step back, I have to agree with the opinion that you must carefully scope your vocabulary and then use designated sources (Library of Congress, subject matter expert sources, even Merriam-Webster for straightforward concepts) to define your terms with some consistency. Ontologies are part of the larger definition of "controlled vocabularies" after all, so keep it controlled. Adding too much ambiguity and potential for uncertainties makes the results uncertain, in my opinion.

                          You might want to consider your corpus to which this vocabulary will be applied (if it is to be applied to content). Try using some of the fancy text mining tools with good semantic capabilities and attempt to discover where these ambiguities exist and then define or redefine your terms as necessary. This is no small task, but it might be worth the effort.

                          I think I'm simplifying a potentially hugely philosophical and complicated issue, but, at the end of the day, you probably have a job to do and need a more practical answer!

                          Good luck!

                          Ahren

                          --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them.  How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"  
                          >
                          > I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.)  Any thoughts on this?  I don't mind being told I'm way off base here.  Please advise and thanks to all.
                          >
                          > Keith DeWeese
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.