[Sigia-l] Findability - hierarchies

[lisa colvin]

As Lars mentions below, "why bother?" is a good
question to ask. A weakly-typed system will not help
with the issues of contextualization or disambiguation
which the faceted classification community is trying
to address. There are plenty of formal ontology
languages and constraint-satisfaction/logical
inferencing engines out there that are built to do the
difficult work of semantic modelling. Why is there a
disconnect between the faceted classification
community and the formal ontology communities? It
seems like ultimately we are both trying to achieve
similar goals of semantic understanding. 


:: lisa

> * Cunliffe D. J.

> | Many thesauri have typed relationships beyond the
> BT/NT hierarchical
> | relationships. Often this typing is only weakly
> typed (in the
> | programming sense) but there is a lot of interest
> in more strongly
> | typed relationships.

> * Lars Marius Garshol

> Ontologies give you that, and much more to boot, so
> if that's what you
> want I don't really see the point of using a
> thesaurus.
>  
> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> |  - you cannot type the nodes, so a machine can't
> tell countries
> |    from diseases from people from animal species,
>  
> * Cunliffe D. J.
> |
> | But this is one of the things you get from facets
> - diseases and
> | countries might well be modelled and categorized
> as fundamentally
> | different things.

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> Sure you can do this, but again the end result is
> just a very weak
> ontology. Essentially an ontology that consists of
> nothing but a class
> hierarchy. Why bother?





__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com