[Sigia-l] Question about the use of the term 'ontology'

[James Melzer]

I'm with Peter - I think the word 'subject' is leading us astray
here... subject in LIS means aboutness; but in topic maps it is the
actor, as in "subject-verb-object." Now having your actor at the
center of things makes sense, but I've never heard that concept
described as 'subject-based', since that is a pretty standard LIS
concept.

Therefore, I'd venture that "subject-based classification" is not at
the top of the hierarchy of classification schemes - ontology is.
Remember - these are product descriptions we are talking about. In a
faceted scheme, a product may be described with loads of different
controlled vocabularies that have nothing to do with subject
(aboutness) - in fact subject is one of the least relevant aspects of
product description (unless you are a media publisher).

Controlled vocabulary is the general term for any agreed upon
language, whether it be the lowly list or a taxonomic hierarchy or a
full-blown ontology (or topic map). Ontology is technically more
correct for defining this space, but ontology implies a certain amount
of specificity in the relationships whereas CV does not. For example,
a simple list is an ontology with one relationship type: "list
membership" and one parent concept: "the list". That's a pretty wonky
way of looking at the world and people will look at you like you're a
nut if you try to explain it that way, so I'd recommend sticking with
CV as your term.

~ James



On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:54:49 -0600, Peter Van Dijck
<peter at poorbuthappy.com> wrote:
> Terminology alert. "Subject" in the topicmap world isn't the same as
> "subject" in the library science (or IA) world. I think. Lars?
> 
> Peter
> 
> > Interesting. I was under the impression that topics are reified subjects
> > (from
> > reading the paper called The TAO of Topic Maps -
> > http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tao.html#d0e657), so how can
> > they be
> > nested within a taxonomy of subject-based classifications? In other
> > words, I
> > don't see a topic as a type of subject, but as something that a subject may
> > become. I'm possibly jumping to a conclusion that wasn't intended --
> > that by
> > nesting topic maps under subject-based classification, that topics would be
> > nested under subjects... thoughts?
> >
> > By the same token, I'd think that subject-based classifications reify
> > ontologies. Maybe what we need is a way to express the way these things
> > become
> > each other -- a sort of state change diagram perhaps?
> >
> > ------------
> > When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> > *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> > Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
> >
> 
> --
> Contact me:
> 
> peter at poorbuthappy.com
> (or petervandijck at gmail.com)
> 
> Cell: +1 646-549-1513
> (or +1 212 202 06 14)
> Fax: +1 206 203 2983
> 
> -----
> Website: http://petervandijck.net
> Blog: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease
> 
> Skype account name: peterkevandijck
> (see http://skype.com)
> 
> IM: peterkevandijck at hotmail.com
> (I do NOT check this account for emails, IM only)
> 
> ------------
> When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
> 
> ________________________________________
> Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
> 


-- 
James Melzer


--------------------------------------
"Choice, the problem is choice." - Neo