W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2005

Re: What about "taxonomies"? RE: Glossary of terms relating to thesauri and faceted classification

From: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas@bandholtz.info>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:38:59 +0100
Message-ID: <010901c50bb1$f54e6640$0f02a8c0@Thomast40>
To: "SKOS" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

> Do you think we should add 'taxonomies' to the second sentence, or not :) 
> ?

Yes I think we should do so, for two reasons:

(one) There are many taxonomies "in its original sense" (Bernard in his 
initial posting of this thread) that need to be integrated with 
thesauri/ontology by applications. We have one case in Germany currently 
under discussion: networking the "MoReTax" [1] project with the Semantic 
Network Services [2] in use by the environmental authorities.

(two) When people use the term "taxonomy" in a more general meaning 
(especially in the US), they are talking about what we call concept scheme 
anyway (e.g. I experienced that when I was working for schlumberger in 
2002), and we should not exclude these kind of "taxonomists" from being 
attracted by our interface.

For both reasons we should include "taxonomies" in the list of examples 
withgout any discussion of its definition. I guess the intro will not try to 
define what "Thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading schemes, 
terminologies, glossaries" are as well.

Thomas

[1] http://www.bgbm.org/BioDivInf/Projects/MoreTax/default.htm
[2] http://www.semantic-network.de/home.html?lang=en 
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2005 18:39:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT