Another Word For It Patrick Durusau on Topic Maps and Semantic Diversity

November 28, 2010

Ontologies, Semantic Data Integration, Mono-ontological (or not?)

Filed under: Marketing,Medical Informatics,Ontology,Semantic Web,Topic Maps — Patrick Durusau @ 10:21 am

Ontologies and Semantic Data Integration

Somewhat dated, 2005, but still interesting.

I was particularly taken with:

First, semantics are used to ensure that two concepts, which might appear in different databases in different forms with different names, can be described as truly equivalent (i.e. they describe the same object). This can be obscured in large databases when two records that might have the same name actually describe two different concepts in two different contexts (e.g. ‘COLD’ could mean ‘lack of heat’, ‘chronic obstructive lung disorder’ or the common cold). More frequently in biology, a concept has many different names during the course of its existence, of which some might be synonymous (e.g. ‘hypertension’ and ‘high blood pressure’) and others might be only closely related (e.g. ‘Viagra’, ‘UK92480’ and ‘sildenafil citrate’).

In my view you could substitute “topic map” everywhere he says ontology, well, except one.

With a topic map, you and I can have the same binding points for information about particular subjects and yet not share the same ontological structure.

Let me repeat that: With a topic map we can share (and update) information about subjects, even though we don’t share a common ontology.

You may have a topic map that reflects a political history of the United States over the last 20 years and in part it exhibits an ontology that reflects elected offices and their office holders.

For the same topic map, to which I contribute information concerning those office holders, I might have a very different ontology, involving offices in Hague.

The important fact is that we could both contribute information about the same subjects and benefit from the information entered by others.

To put it another way is the different being mono-ontological or not?

Questions:

  1. Is “mono-ontological” another way of saying “ontologically/logically” consistent? (3-5 pages, citations if you like)
  2. What are the advantages of mono-ontological systems? (3-5 pages, citations)
  3. What are the disadvantages of mono-ontological systems? (3-5 pages, citations)

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress